Communion of the Body of Christ

[Albion]

But, Albion, is not Christ, in some way, not really present in our lives, regardless of whether we are partaking of the Lord's Supper?

Certainly he is. But what is the point of the question? The doctrine of the Real Presence, which we have been discussing, deals with the nature of the communion elements.

Baptist's believe Jesus is present with them as they remember his atoning sacrifice and what the bread and juice represent. Baptist's just don't treat the bread and juice as becoming the actual body and blood of Jesus.
I am unable to discern the nuance you are attempting to make.

There's no nuance. Either the belief is of the Real Presence in the elements...or it is (as the Baptists say) just a symbol of that.

Based upon the belief that Jesus is really present in our fellowship, I would state that Baptists believe in the real presence of Christ Jesus,

They don't.

You are persisting in changing the meaning of Real Presence in order to make a contrary POV look essentially the same.

 

[Particular]

That appears to be the case (based on the historical record and knowing that, technically, even one dissenter in a thousand years makes a claim of "all" Christians wrong).


We have no reason to think they did not accept their Lord's own words as stated at the Last Supper.

However also, remember that Real Presence means really present in the bread and wine, but not necessarily dripping with blood, being part of Jesus' forearm, or any other such ridiculous exaggerations.

Thank you. I don't understand how you jump to the conclusion of your last paragraph. It seems to me that it's either real body and real blood in the elements or it's not. It can not be some middle ground.
If you think the idea that the bread is really Jesus body and the wine is really Jesus blood, then it cannot be a ridiculous exaggeration to say it is. Otherwise, it isn't really the body and blood of Jesus and therefore it is symbolic.
I am honestly not grasping your real presence concept. It seems to be an attempt to not take the verses literally while also not taking the verses symbolically. It seems empty. I am not trying to be disrespectful. I just don't follow your nuance.

 

[Particular]

Certainly he is. But what is the point of the question? The doctrine of the Real Presence, which we have been discussing, deals with the nature of the communion elements.


There's no nuance. Either the belief is of the Real Presence in the elements...or it is (as the Baptists say) just a symbol of that.


They don't.

You are persisting in changing the meaning of Real Presence in order to make a contrary POV look essentially the same.

I'm sorry. I don't grasp your nuance.

 

[Albion]

Thank you. I don't understand how you jump to the conclusion of your last paragraph. It seems to me that it's either real body and real blood in the elements or it's not. It can not be some middle ground.

C'mon. It could be his body in some sense other than literal, carnal, flesh. Or it could be his body ALONG WITH the bread and wine. Or it could be his body in a spiritual, heavenly sense that we do not understand with our mortal senses.

NONE OF THESE is "just a representation of" his body and blood, i.e. the Anabaptist POV.

 

[Particular]

C'mon. It could be his body in some sense other than literal, carnal, flesh. Or it could be his body ALONG WITH the bread and wine. Or it could be his body in a spiritual, heavenly sense that we do not understand with our mortal senses.

NONE OF THESE is "just a representation of" his body and blood, i.e. the Anabaptist POV.

Albion, you say "could be." This suggests you are speculating. Is that what you are doing? Is there no clear teaching in the Bible regarding the concept of real presence?
I can see someone being extremely literal, in which case the bread and wine become real flesh and real blood from Jesus human body.
Or, I can see symbolic flesh and body.
In either situation, Jesus is present because he is God.
I have a struggle to wrap my mind around what you are attempting to promote.

 

[Josiah]

Are you saying that all Christians from the Last Supper until the Reformer, Zwingli, were Roman Catholic believers who believed they were eating the real flesh and drinking the real blood of Jesus in communion?

1. Please read posts 131, 133, 134 and 137. Please read all the words of those posts. THAT'S what I'm saying.


2. I never mentioned the word "eating." I never mentioned the word "drinking."


3. I never said everyone prior to Zwingli accepted the dogma of Transubstantiation. I said pretty much the opposite of that. Please read posts 131, 133, 134 and 137.

Did the disciples in the upper room believe they were eating Jesus actual flesh and drinking Jesus actual blood?

The Bible doesn't say. PAUL obviously affirms Real Presence but he wasn't there at the Last Supper, he simply got his information directly from Jesus. I'm not aware of any prior to Zwingli who did not affirm Real Presence (at least among CHRISTIANS, there were pagan unbelievers who mocked the idea, however). Transubstantiation was first theorized in the 9th Century (so LONG after any of the Apostles) and was not dogma until 1551 (and then only in one denomination). Zwingli was the first to invent the "can't so, must be a symbol" idea in the 16th Century. But no Scripture records precisely what each of the 12 Apostles thought or believed about this on that paricular night.






.

 

[Particular]

1. Please read posts 131, 133, 134 and 137. Please read all the words of those posts. THAT'S what I'm saying.


2. I never mentioned the word "eating." I never mentioned the word "drinking."


3. I never said everyone prior to Zwingli accepted the dogma of Transubstantiation. I said pretty much the opposite of that. Please read posts 131, 133, 134 and 137.






The Bible doesn't say. PAUL obviously affirms Real Presence but he wasn't there at the Last Supper, he simply got his information directly from Jesus. I'm not aware of any prior to Zwingli who did not affirm Real Presence (at least among CHRISTIANS, there were pagan unbelievers who mocked the idea, however). Transubstantiation was first theorized in the 9th Century (so LONG after any of the Apostles) and was not dogma until 1551 (and then only in one denomination). Zwingli was the first to invent the "can't so, must be a symbol" idea in the 16th Century. But no Scripture records precisely what each of the 12 Apostles thought or believed about this on that paricular night.






.

Josiah, I have read every post in this thread. I do not follow the concept of real presence. I see that either the elements are the actual body and blood of Jesus or they symbolize it. Those seem to be the only two viable options from the text.
Some extra presence beyond the reality that Jesus is always present in the fellowship just seems unnecessary.
Therefore, it seems that real presence must be the Roman Catholic Church teaching or the Baptist Church teaching. Other options seem to be an attempt to muddy up what is presented in the text.
So, no matter if I read this thread 10 times over, I would not grasp your nuance if it isn't clearly stated I scripture.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, I have read every post in this thread. I do not follow the concept of real presence.

It's easy.

Just read the words in the texts.
Read the words THERE - and accept them.
Ignore any words NOT THERE - and don't substitute them.

IS = is. (Being, existing, present, real)
BREAD = bread. Every time the word appears.
WINE/CUP/FRUIT = wine, cup, fruit. Every time the word appears.
BODY = body. Every time the word appears.
FORGIVENESS = forgiveness. Every time the word appears.

Words that never appear (because they don't apply) are "symbolizes" "not" "seems" "changed" "alchemic transubstantiation" "Aristotelian accident." So, traditional Christianity would argue to accept the words there and don't delete them and substitute words not there. Make sense? it's really simple.


There you are.
Simple.

I would not grasp your nuance .

There is no nuance. Just accepting and believing.

Body and Blood There. Real. Present. No Christian for over 1500 years seems to have had a problem with that, perhaps because there is no "nuance" and no doubt, no denial, no deletions, no substitutions. Just the words Jesus said and Paul penned. Accepted and believed. That's it. That's all. Simple.

Nowhere does it state anything CEASED to be or anything CONVERTED into something else. It says "is." If I say "This is a Toyota" that does not mandate that it use to be a cow but the atoms were rearranged and now it's a Toyota. It means we have a Toyota here. If you receive it, you do (but that doesn't mean you digest it). Now, both Jesus and Paul speak of "wine/cup/fruit" AFTER the consecration (more than before, in the same way as before) and there's no reason to think they are lying, and there's no reason to impose Aristotle's wierd (and wrong) theory of accidents; it could be we have FOUR things co-existing FULLY (and that's okay) but our focus is where it's always been - on Christ.


Read this...

Let's look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not. What are the words THERE and the ones NOT there?


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.



Real Presence IS:

1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing deleted, nothing modified. Just accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned. Nothing more, nothing less.

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 (without comment, without theory)

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.

Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens - it doesn't matter. It is believed because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration.


"Bread" = bread. Every time.
"Wine" = wine. Every time.
"Is" = is. Every time.
"Body" = body. Every time.
"Blood" = blood. Every time.
"Forgiveness" = forgiveness. Every time.


Nowhere do we find "not" "seems like but isn't" "changed" "symbolizes" "can't" "undergoing an alchemic transubstantiation" "half of which is an Aristotelian accident."


.

And remember: YES the RCC still accepts Real Presence (although it's largely forgotten), but since 1551, that denomination's Dogma is also Transubstantiation, it's position is BOTH (inseperably). It's wrong to say "the Catholic Church simply teaches Real Presence." Not, it teaches BOTH Real Presence and Transubstantiation. Read post 131 for the RCC's dogma on this.





.

 

[Particular]

It's easy.

Just read the words in the texts.
Read the words THERE - and accept them.
Ignore any words NOT THERE - and don't substitute them.

IS = is. (Being, existing, present, real)
BREAD = bread. Every time the word appears.
WINE/CUP/FRUIT = wine, cup, fruit. Every time the word appears.
BODY = body. Every time the word appears.
FORGIVENESS = forgiveness. Every time the word appears.

Words that never appear (because they don't apply) are "symbolizes" "not" "seems" "changed" "alchemic transubstantiation" "Aristotelian accident."


There you are.
Simple.





There is no nuance. Just accepting and believing.

Jesus started with two things. Then there are four things. There. Real. Present. No Christian for over 1500 years seems to have had a problem with that, perhaps because there is no "nuance" and no doubt, no denial, no deletions, no substitutions. Just the words Jesus said and Paul penned. Accepted and believed. That's it. That's all. Simple.

Read this...






.

I read the words in the text.
Either it is the actual physical body and blood of Jesus or it's symbolic and to be remembered. Those are the two options.
Which option of those two choices do you accept?
If you have a third option, show how the third option is taught in the text. If you cannot explain it, I will never understand what you are talking about.
I am graciously trying to let you teach your position, but your present method doesn't teach me anything. It just says "look at the passage." I'm telling you I have been looking and reading the passage. I only see the two possible options in the passage. If there is a third, alternative, then teach how it is massaged from the text because I currently do not see your claim in the text.

 

[Albion]

Albion, you say "could be." This suggests you are speculating. Is that what you are doing?

Absolutely no! I was responding to your point that you cannot conceive of more than two possible explanations of the nature of the Lord's Supper. Well, there are others and they are fairly obvious.

As it happens, each of the examples I gave you happen to be what one or another of some of the best-known Christian denominations actually DO believe, so not only was I showing that there "could be" other ways of looking at it, but these are actually believed. They aren't hypothetical!

Is there no clear teaching in the Bible regarding the concept of real presence?

Well, yes. John 6 is often cited, but really now...how many Bible verses does it take to convince someone who supposedly believes in the Bible??

I can see someone being extremely literal, in which case the bread and wine become real flesh and real blood from Jesus human body.
Or, I can see symbolic flesh and body.

Yeh, we got that the first time. And the second. And the third, etc.

In either situation, Jesus is present because he is God.

Not in the elements...and that is the whole issue here. You just won't confront it lest you be persuaded by the word of God to change your thinking.

:esad:

I have a struggle to wrap my mind around what you are attempting to promote.

Actually, the great majority of it has been an attempt just to get you to understand.

 

[Josiah]

I read the words in the text.Either it is the actual physical body and blood of Jesus or it's symbolic and to be remembered. Those are the two options.

Well, either it's true or it's not. I hold it's true. Jesus body and blood ARE present. IS. Not "is not" or "cannot be" or "symbolizes" as Zwingli argued, and not "changed from one reality into another via a very specific physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind an undiscernable mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents" as the RCC now teaches. So, if we accept the words and believe - we have Real Presence. And reject Zwingli's "can't be true so it must be a symbol" view now perpetuated by some "Evangelicals" and I reject the 1551 RCC dogma of Transubstantiation.

I accept every word THERE and reject every word not there. It's called Real Presence. No nuance. No doubt. No deletions. No substitutions. Simple.

The "third option" is rejecting Transubstantiation and Metaphor - since both are founded on a rejection of the words and a substitution of others. Jesus and Paul speak of His Body and Blood being PRESENT. And they speak of bread and wine more often after the Consecration than before, and never so much as mentioned "is not" "can't be" "seems like but isn't" "symbollizes" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "change" "Aristotle" "accidents."




Try this. In the following two texts, look for the following words. IF you find them, embolden and underline them (noting if such is before or after the Consecration). Then COUNT the number of times each word appears.

BREAD
WINE/CUP/FRUIT OF THE VINE
IS
BODY
BLOOD
NOT
SEEMS
SYMBOLIZE
CHANGE
ALCHEMY
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
ARISTOTLE
APPEARS
ACCIDENT

Embolden each word as it appears. Note if it comes before or after the Consecration. Count the number of times each word appears.
I think you might see how simple this is.
No nuance at all.
None needed.

Here are the texts...

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.


.

Do the exercise. When you are done, you will know everything about Real Presence. Right there in black-and-white. By your own notation.




.

 

[Particular]

Well, either it's true or it's not. I hold it's true. Jesus body and blood ARE present. IS. Not "is not" or "cannot be" or "symbolizes" as Zwingli argued, and not "changed from one reality into another via a very specific physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind an undiscernable mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents" as the RCC now teaches. So, if we accept the words and believe - we have Real Presence. And reject Zwingli's "can't be true so it must be a symbol" view now perpetuated by some "Evangelicals" and I reject the 1551 RCC dogma of Transubstantiation.

I accept every word THERE and reject every word not there. It's called Real Presence. No nuance. No doubt. No deletions. No substitutions. Simple.

The "third option" is rejecting Transubstantiation and Metaphor - since both are founded on a rejection of the words and a substitution of others. Jesus and Paul speak of His Body and Blood being PRESENT. And they speak of bread and wine more often after the Consecration than before, and never so much as mentioned "is not" "can't be" "seems like but isn't" "symbollizes" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "change" "Aristotle" "accidents."




Try this. In the following two texts, look for the following words. IF you find them, embolden and underline them (noting if such is before or after the Consecration). Then COUNT the number of times each word appears.

BREAD
WINE/CUP/FRUIT OF THE VINE
IS
BODY
BLOOD
NOT
SEEMS
SYMBOLIZE
CHANGE
ALCHEMY
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
ARISTOTLE
APPEARS
ACCIDENT

Embolden each word as it appears. Note if it comes before or after the Consecration. Count the number of times each word appears.
I think you might see how simple this is.
No nuance at all.
None needed.

Here are the texts...




Do the exercise. When you are done, you will know everything about Real Presence. Right there in black-and-white. By your own notation.




.

So you hold the Roman Catholic Church position. The elements are the real flesh and real blood of Jesus.
I accept you choose that position. But, I suspect you don't call that position "real presence" even though that would be the very essence of real presence.
I'm sorry you cannot teach me the subtle nuance that both you and Albion are attempting. I just don't see the nuance you think is there.
I will bow out.

 

[RichWh1]

I read the words in the text.
Either it is the actual physical body and blood of Jesus or it's symbolic and to be remembered. Those are the two options.
Which option of those two choices do you accept?
If you have a third option, show how the third option is taught in the text. If you cannot explain it, I will never understand what you are talking about.
I am graciously trying to let you teach your position, but your present method doesn't teach me anything. It just says "look at the passage." I'm telling you I have been looking and reading the passage. I only see the two possible options in the passage. If there is a third, alternative, then teach how it is massaged from the text because I currently do not see your claim in the text.

If Communion is the actual body of Christ then breaking that bread would be breaking the body of Christ, making Him suffer eternally!!

 

[RichWh1]

So you hold the Roman Catholic Church position. The elements are the real flesh and real blood of Jesus.
I accept you choose that position. But, I suspect you don't call that position "real presence" even though that would be the very essence of real presence.
I'm sorry you cannot teach me the subtle nuance that both you and Albion are attempting. I just don't see the nuance you think is there.
I will bow out.

If this is true then the Catholic Church is crucifying Jesus daily ; yet Scripture says Christ having died can die no more!! Breaking His body and spilling His blood on the altar is making Him die over and over!

 

[Josiah]

Well, either it's true or it's not. I hold it's true. Jesus body and blood ARE present. IS. Not "is not" or "cannot be" or "symbolizes" as Zwingli argued, and not "changed from one reality into another via a very specific physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind an undiscernable mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents" as the RCC
now teaches. So, if we accept the words and believe - we have Real Presence. And reject Zwingli's "can't be true so it must be a symbol" view now perpetuated by some "Evangelicals" and I reject the 1551 RCC
dogma of Transubstantiation.

I accept every word THERE and reject every word not there. It's called Real Presence. No nuance. No doubt. No deletions. No substitutions. Simple.

The "third option" is rejecting Transubstantiation and Metaphor - since both are founded on a rejection of the words and a substitution of others. Jesus and Paul speak of His Body and Blood being PRESENT. And they speak of bread and wine more often after the Consecration than before, and never so much as mentioned "is not" "can't be" "seems like but isn't" "symbollizes" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "change" "Aristotle" "accidents."




Try this. In the following two texts, look for the following words. IF you find them, embolden and underline them (noting if such is before or after the Consecration). Then COUNT the number of times each word appears.

BREAD
WINE/CUP/FRUIT OF THE VINE
IS
BODY
BLOOD
NOT
SEEMS
SYMBOLIZE
CHANGE
ALCHEMY
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
ARISTOTLE
APPEARS
ACCIDENT

Embolden each word as it appears. Note if it comes before or after the Consecration. Count the number of times each word appears.
I think you might see how simple this is.
No nuance at all.
None needed.

Here are the texts...




Do the exercise. When you are done, you will know everything about Real Presence. Right there in black-and-white. By your own notation.

So you hold the Roman Catholic Church position.

1. So, you didn't read posts 131, 133, 134, 137, 148. Please read these. All the words. Note what words are there and don't insert any that are not there. It's very simple.


2. So, you didn't do the exercise. Try it. I suspect the result will be a good understanding of Real Presence. Real Presence accepts and believes the words THERE rather than deleting them and inserting words NOT there. Simple. Very simple.


3. QUOTE me where I ever said "the elements are the real flesh and blood of Jesus." We all know you can't, my friend, because I never said that. It's hard to have these conversations if what is posted is ignored and all kinds of stuff is imputed that not only was never said but quite contradicted. I suggest you read (or re-read) the posts referenced in point 1. Note what is said. Note what is not. Note that I flat out stated I hold to Real Presence and NOT, N.O.T., either of the 16th century invented dogmas, that of Zwingli AND that of the RCC but rather, instead, I hold to the orginal position, the one all held to for over 1500 years, the one that accepts and believes what Jesus said and Paul penned, the one that means that His body and blood are PRESENT, exists, are there because the meaning of is is is, is has to do with BEING. It has nothing to do with denials, it does not mean change, it does not mean "not," it does not mean "seems like but isn't", does not indicate anything about alchemy or Aristotles' theory of accidents.

you hold the Roman Catholic Church position. I accept you choose that position.

QUOTE me where I stated what you claim I did. Quote me stating, "I reject Real Presence and Zwingli's "can't be true so it's not" but I hold to the RCC's postiion of Transubstantiation." QUOTE me saying that. Friend, you state you've read posts 131, 133, 134, 137, 148.... but it's extremely hard for me to believe that when you state things like this, when I flat out stated I REJECT the Catholic position.


I have no nuance. I'm just accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul penned. Accepting the words - in what they typically mean - every time. No denial. No doubt. No "that can't be true so it must be a symbol". No imposed concepts of alchemy. No imposed philosophies of Aristotle. No nuance. No deletions. No substitutions.


Try the exercise above. IF you do, I find it hard that you then do not understand Real Presence. Because Real Presence has no nuance, no philosophy, no theories, no explanations. It just accepts and believes the words THERE rather than deleting some and substitiuting others. Simple. Easy. Worked for 100% of Christians for over 1500 years and still works for many today.



Blessings


Josiah





.

 

[Particular]

1. So, you didn't read posts 131, 133, 134, 137, 148. Please read these. All the words. Note what words are there and don't insert any that are not there. It's very simple.


2. So, you didn't do the exercise. Try it. I suspect the result will be a good understanding of Real Presence. Real Presence accepts and believes the words THERE rather than deleting them and inserting words NOT there. Simple. Very simple.


3. QUOTE me where I ever said "the elements are the real flesh and blood of Jesus." We all know you can't, my friend, because I never said that. It's hard to have these conversations if what is posted is ignored and all kinds of stuff is imputed that not only was never said but quite contradicted. I suggest you read (or re-read) the posts referenced in point 1. Note what is said. Note what is not. Note that I flat out stated I hold to Real Presence and NOT, N.O.T., either of the 16th century invented dogmas, that of Zwingli AND that of the RCC but rather, instead, I hold to the orginal position, the one all held to for over 1500 years, the one that accepts and believes what Jesus said and Paul penned, the one that means that His body and blood are PRESENT, exists, are there because the meaning of is is is, is has to do with BEING. It has nothing to do with denials, it does not mean change, it does not mean "not," it does not mean "seems like but isn't", does not indicate anything about alchemy or Aristotles' theory of accidents.







QUOTE me where I stated what you claim I did. Quote me stating, "I reject Real Presence and Zwingli's "can't be true so it's not" but I hold to the RCC's postiion of Transubstantiation." QUOTE me saying that. Friend, you state you've read posts 131, 133, 134, 137, 148.... but it's extremely hard for me to believe that when you state things like this, when I flat out stated I REJECT the Catholic position.


I have no nuance. I'm just accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul penned. Accepting the words - in what they typically mean - every time. No denial. No doubt. No "that can't be true so it must be a symbol". No imposed concepts of alchemy. No imposed philosophies of Aristotle. No nuance. No deletions. No substitutions.


Try the exercise above. IF you do, I find it hard that you then do not understand Real Presence. Because Real Presence has no nuance, no philosophy, no theories, no explanations. It just accepts and believes the words THERE rather than deleting some and substitiuting others. Simple. Easy. Worked for 100% of Christians for over 1500 years and still works for many today.



Blessings


Josiah





.

As I said. I'm bowing out. Your method of explanation has not been helpful. I still have no idea how your conception of real presence is any different from the Roman Catholic Church. Moreso, I don't see your argument being made in the text of scripture.
There has been enough dialogue now. I simply admit I cannot follow your train of thought on this subject.
Blessings

 

[Lamb]

As I said. I'm bowing out. Your method of explanation has not been helpful. I still have no idea how your conception of real presence is any different from the Roman Catholic Church. Moreso, I don't see your argument being made in the text of scripture.
There has been enough dialogue now. I simply admit I cannot follow your train of thought on this subject.
Blessings

Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine BECOME the body and blood...as in changes form. Lutherans believe that the bread is bread and the bread is Jesus' body and the wine is wine and the wine is Jesus' blood. We believe it because Jesus said, "This is my body" "this is my blood".

 

[Particular]

Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine BECOME the body and blood...as in changes form. Lutherans believe that the bread is bread and the bread is Jesus' body and the wine is wine and the wine is Jesus' blood. We believe it because Jesus said, "This is my body" "this is my blood".

I don't see the practical difference. The bread is Jesus actual flesh and the wine is Jesus actual blood. It seems to be practically the same thing, just dressed up in different phraseology.

 

[Albion]

I don't see the practical difference. The bread is Jesus actual flesh and the wine is Jesus actual blood. It seems to be practically the same thing, just dressed up in different phraseology.

Where did I get the idea that you had bowed out? Oh yes, that was three posts ago.

So let's just live with the fact that, despite the best efforts of a number of other members here, you don't get it.

 

[Particular]

Where did I get the idea that you had bowed out? Oh yes, that was three posts ago.

So let's just live with the fact that, despite the best efforts of a number of other members here, you don't get it.

Sounds good.
I was just replying to a new voice in the thread. My apologies.