Communion of the Body of Christ

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Q. What was Jesus holding and claimed was His body when He “meant what He said and said what He mean”?
A. Bread.

On the other hand, if we believe what he said about that which he was holding, it was not ordinary bread or just bread.

So, do we believe him...or not?

You can speculate about Christ's meaning when he said it was his body, but he did say it. Therefore your theory--that it meant nothing at all--is a rather stunning rejection of the Lord's directive, one that was given to all disciples.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
On the other hand, if we believe what he said about that which he was holding, it was not ordinary bread or just bread.

So, do we believe him...or not?

You can speculate about Christ's meaning when he said it was his body, but he did say it. Therefore your theory--that it meant nothing at all--is a rather stunning rejection of the Lord's directive, one that was given to all disciples.
Sorry chief, I speculated nothing. I just took the Lutheran dogma at its word and quoted the actual scripture rather than just loosely paraphrase it like others have. It says what it says and YOU believe about that whatever you choose to believe.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sorry chief, I speculated nothing. I just took the Lutheran dogma at its word and quoted the actual scripture rather than just loosely paraphrase it like others have.
That does explain a few things about your strange 'bread is bread' post. Your speculation was a result of you misunderstanding the Lutheran teaching about the nature of the Eucharist.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
On the other hand, if we believe what he said about that which he was holding, it was not ordinary bread or just bread.

Tim:
Well, that's no ordinary rabbit.

King Arthur:
Ohh.

Tim:
That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!

 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
That does explain a few things about your strange 'bread is bread' post. Your speculation was a result of you misunderstanding the Lutheran teaching about the nature of the Eucharist.
atpollard didn't speculate. He simply quoted scripture and highlighted a few words.
It is interesting that you call it speculation.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
[Mat 26:26 NASB] 26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
[Mar 14:22 NASB] 22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body."
[Luk 22:19 NASB] 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

Q. What was Jesus holding and claimed was His body when He “meant what He said and said what He meant”?
A. Bread.

Jesus was holding bread but here's the very important part...He SAYS This IS MY BODY.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
5,045
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jesus was holding bread but here's the very important part...He SAYS This IS MY BODY.

I believe your quoting the same passage in three different gospels. He does say that and I would interpret that to mean that he is saying "This bread symbolizes my body." The disciples clearly understood that he didn't mean literally because it was not his body, but it was bread
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah said:

The Lutheran position (Known as Real Presence) is very simple: The words mean what they state.
"This" = this.
"Is" = is (the word has to do with reality, presence, being, "there").
"Bread" = bread.
"Wine" = wine.
"My" = my.
"Body" = body.
"Blood" = blood.
"Forgiveness" = forgiveness.
Just what Jesus said. Just what Paul by divine inspiration penned.

NO doubt. NO deletions. NO additions or substitutions. NO explanations. NO inserted medieval false ideas of physics.
The THAT is affirmed, the HOW is left alone. It's called the Mystery of Real Presence.
Lutherans don't replace any word with "change" "not" "seems like" "transformed" "alchemy" "Aristotle" "symbolizes" "appearance".
We hold that Jesus meant what He said and said what He meant. Same with St. Paul.
That's it. That's all.
Simple.




.


[Mat 26:26 NASB] 26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
[Mar 14:22 NASB] 22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body."
[Luk 22:19 NASB] 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

Q. What was Jesus holding and claimed was His body when He “meant what He said and said what He meant”?
A. Bread.


[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


I don't hold that Jesus made a false claim here.
I'm not the one insisting that SOME things Jesus said are true and some... well.....
I'm not demanding a split half true, half not spin. I never said that bread and wine are not absent, I said that Body and Blood are present.


Here's my position.
It's the identical position that EVERY CHRISTIAN had for over 1500 years.
It was good enough for 100% of Christians for over 1500 years. It's good enough for me.
Jesus said what He meant. Paul penned what the Holy Spirit inspired.

The "Real Presence" view is very simple: The words are what they are and mean what they state.
Simple.

"This" = this.
"Is" = is (the word has to do with reality, presence, being, "there").
"Bread" = bread.
"Wine" = wine.
"My" = my.
"Body" = body.
"Blood" = blood.
"Forgiveness" = forgiveness.
Just what Jesus said. Just what Paul by divine inspiration penned.

NO doubt.
NO deletions.
NO additions or substitutions.
NO explanations.
NO inserted medieval false ideas of physics.
NO "but my (really bad) understanding of physics says this can't be so it can't be true"
The THAT is affirmed, the HOW is left alone.
It's called the Mystery of Real Presence.


Don't replace any word with "change" "not" "seems like" "transformed" "alchemy" "Aristotle" "symbolizes" "appearance" "or" "of" "made"
We hold that Jesus meant what He said and said what He meant. Same with St. Paul.
That's it. That's all.
Simple.


What I don't find in anything about the Eucharist is "not" "just seems like" "falsely appears like" "symbolizes" "made" "of" "change" "or" "transform" "Aristotle" "alchemy"
And not one Christian for over 1500 years ever saw any of those either.
Accepting what Jesus said and Paul penned - rather than what they did not - is known as "Real Presence."
It was the universal, historic view of all Christians for over 1500 years.
For over 1500 years, not one Christian had any problem believing Jesus.
I don't either.





.
 
Last edited:

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I believe your quoting the same passage in three different gospels. He does say that and I would interpret that to mean that he is saying "This bread symbolizes my body." The disciples clearly understood that he didn't mean literally because it was not his body, but it was bread

Jesus did not say symbolize though, did he? It wouldn't have been so important with warnings attached if the disciples didn't think that the Lord's body and blood were truly present in the bread and wine.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,283
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I do not beleive in real presence either but for those who do no problem. My only gripe is closed communion for if we are all part of the body then denying communion seems very inhospitable to me
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
5,045
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


I don't hold that Jesus made a false claim here.
I'm not the one insisting that SOME things Jesus said are true and some... well.....
I'm not demanding a split half true, half not spin. I never said that bread and wine are not absent, I said that Body and Blood are present.


Here's my position.
It's the identical position that EVERY CHRISTIAN had for over 1500 years.
It was good enough for 100% of Christians for over 1500 years. It's good enough for me.
Jesus said what He meant. Paul penned what the Holy Spirit inspired.

The "Real Presence" view is very simple: The words are what they are and mean what they state.
Simple.

"This" = this.
"Is" = is (the word has to do with reality, presence, being, "there").
"Bread" = bread.
"Wine" = wine.
"My" = my.
"Body" = body.
"Blood" = blood.
"Forgiveness" = forgiveness.
Just what Jesus said. Just what Paul by divine inspiration penned.

NO doubt.
NO deletions.
NO additions or substitutions.
NO explanations.
NO inserted medieval false ideas of physics.
NO "but my (really bad) understanding of physics says this can't be so it can't be true"
The THAT is affirmed, the HOW is left alone.
It's called the Mystery of Real Presence.


Don't replace any word with "change" "not" "seems like" "transformed" "alchemy" "Aristotle" "symbolizes" "appearance" "or" "of" "made"
We hold that Jesus meant what He said and said what He meant. Same with St. Paul.
That's it. That's all.
Simple.


What I don't find in anything about the Eucharist is "not" "just seems like" "falsely appears like" "symbolizes" "made" "of" "change" "or" "transform" "Aristotle" "alchemy"
And not one Christian for over 1500 years ever saw any of those either.
Accepting what Jesus said and Paul penned - rather than what they did not - is known as "Real Presence."
It was the universal, historic view of all Christians for over 1500 years.
For over 1500 years, not one Christian had any problem believing Jesus.
I don't either.





.

You keep saying this mantra that if it was good enough for 1500 years then it is good enough for you. I find that respond to be really lacking however. If you've studied church history you realize that includes the period of the dark ages when the church became completely corrupt and deviated from the truth and at that point the Reformation occurs for a course correction. Please don't claim you don't know what I mean by corrupt. If you don't then you haven't studied church history like I think you have.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I do not beleive in real presence either but for those who do no problem. My only gripe is closed communion for if we are all part of the body then denying communion seems very inhospitable to me

Okay, but for anyone who feels as you do--and there are many--it is necessary to know WHY that rule is applied. It is because the church, whether Catholic or Protestant, believes that this most sacred act of unity among believers requires that all the communicants be in agreement on doctrine. And that is how communion was handled in the first Christian churches.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
5,045
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jesus did not say symbolize though, did he? It wouldn't have been so important with warnings attached if the disciples didn't think that the Lord's body and blood were truly present in the bread and wine.

I had a feeling either you or Josiah would make that statement. But, every time a person speaks symbolic language they don't announce it. I don't do that and neither do you. The fact is, that Jesus used symbolic language often. In the parables and also how he spoke to the disciples. If you look for example in John 4:32-36
32 "But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.”
33 Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?”
34 “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. 35 Don’t you have a saying, ‘It’s still four months until harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. 36 Even now the one who reaps draws a wage and harvests a crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together."


This occurs right after Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman. Nobody gave Jesus physical food in this encounter. Nobody. And this wasn't what Jesus was talking about. Yet, the disciples ask each other "Did someone give him something to eat?" Because they are slow and don't get it that he was using symbolic language. he was talking about the food which was "to do the will of Him who sent me." Is that not symbolic language to you?
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jesus was holding bread but here's the very important part...He SAYS This IS MY BODY.
What is “THIS” in your quote? What “IS HIS BODY”?

Does that mean that His incarnate flesh was not “His body” since Jesus said that the loaf of bread “IS [HIS] BODY”?
(How sure are we that Jesus was speaking literally here?)
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What is “THIS” in your quote? What “IS HIS BODY”?

Does that mean that His incarnate flesh was not “His body” since Jesus said that the loaf of bread “IS [HIS] BODY”?
There is no reason we should think that.

(How sure are we that Jesus was speaking literally here?)
He may not have been speaking literally. Few of us believe that the bread became his arm or leg, for example, but in some way or other it was changed. At least that is so if we are to believe his words.

That was Lamm's point. If we are to say that the bread was just bread from beginning to end of the supper, then the somewhat surprising and much-debated words that he said would have been irrelevant, useless, not worth saying.

But he did say them, so we have to take account of them.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


I don't hold that Jesus made a false claim here.
I'm not the one insisting that SOME things Jesus said are true and some... well.....
I'm not demanding a split half true, half not spin. I never said that bread and wine are not absent, I said that Body and Blood are present.


Here's my position.
It's the identical position that EVERY CHRISTIAN had for over 1500 years.
It was good enough for 100% of Christians for over 1500 years. It's good enough for me.
Jesus said what He meant. Paul penned what the Holy Spirit inspired.

The "Real Presence" view is very simple: The words are what they are and mean what they state.
Simple.

"This" = this.
"Is" = is (the word has to do with reality, presence, being, "there").
"Bread" = bread.
"Wine" = wine.
"My" = my.
"Body" = body.
"Blood" = blood.
"Forgiveness" = forgiveness.
Just what Jesus said. Just what Paul by divine inspiration penned.

NO doubt.
NO deletions.
NO additions or substitutions.
NO explanations.
NO inserted medieval false ideas of physics.
NO "but my (really bad) understanding of physics says this can't be so it can't be true"
The THAT is affirmed, the HOW is left alone.
It's called the Mystery of Real Presence.


Don't replace any word with "change" "not" "seems like" "transformed" "alchemy" "Aristotle" "symbolizes" "appearance" "or" "of" "made"
We hold that Jesus meant what He said and said what He meant. Same with St. Paul.
That's it. That's all.
Simple.


What I don't find in anything about the Eucharist is "not" "just seems like" "falsely appears like" "symbolizes" "made" "of" "change" "or" "transform" "Aristotle" "alchemy"
And not one Christian for over 1500 years ever saw any of those either.
Accepting what Jesus said and Paul penned - rather than what they did not - is known as "Real Presence."
It was the universal, historic view of all Christians for over 1500 years.
For over 1500 years, not one Christian had any problem believing Jesus.
I don't either.





.
So, you believe Jesus had wine flowing through his veins and his body was a big piece of bread. Got it.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
There is no reason we should think that.


He may not have been speaking literally. Few of us believe that the bread became his arm or leg, for example, but in some way or other it was changed. At least that is so if we are to believe his words.

That was Lamm's point. If we are to say that the bread was just bread from beginning to end of the supper, then the somewhat surprising and much-debated words that he said would have been irrelevant, useless, not worth saying.

But he did say them, so we have to take account of them.
Jesus was changing the sadir meal reference regarding the body and blood of the lamb. The Passover was done in remembrance of what God has done in taking Israel out of slavery. Jesus was changing the remembrance from Passover to His atoning sacrifice, which takes his promised ones out of slavery to sin and into the promised land of the Kingdom of God. We do what Jesus commanded...in remembrance of Him.
It surprises me that you and others may miss this symbolism.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,283
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Okay, but for anyone who feels as you do--and there are many--it is necessary to know WHY that rule is applied. It is because the church, whether Catholic or Protestant, believes that this most sacred act of unity among believers requires that all the communicants be in agreement on doctrine. And that is how communion was handled in the first Christian churches.
Which is why I leave you to it and will never set foot in a church that denys communion to believers
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Which is why I leave you to it and will never set foot in a church that denys communion to believers

That's fair. No doubt about that, and it is not as though you were refusing to attend any church or were swearing off Christianity altogether. I am always saddened when I read someone saying those things.

It is worth keeping in mind, though, that there is a reason for close communion which is not that those people are just given to aloofness towards other Christians.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Top Bottom