Communion of the Body of Christ

[Lamb]

You take it that way because recognizing Jesus use of metaphor in connection with the Passover meal means your church tradition is wrong. Can you handle it if your church is wrong?

What metaphor are you referring to? There is no proof that Jesus was using a metaphor. Look at the real metaphors that Jesus used in scripture and compare...they just don't equate to what He's saying in the text concerning His body and blood.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Perhaps you misunderstood what was asked of you. Post the text of the Last Supper and show what is symbolic and what isn't. Your article states 4 cups of wine used during the Seder. We don't see anything in the Gospel accounts that say there were multiple cups used. We see one cup, that Jesus says is His blood. You claim that the third cup is the one Jesus raised up and proclaimed was His blood. FYI, when you raise a cup and say it's your blood, that's not metaphorical or symbolic language. But where is the Scriptural support for your claim that this was in fact, the third of four cups?

 

[Lamb]

Perhaps you misunderstood what was asked of you. Post the text of the Last Supper and show what is symbolic and what isn't. Your article states 4 cups of wine used during the Seder. We don't see anything in the Gospel accounts that say there were multiple cups used. We see one cup, that Jesus says is His blood. You claim that the third cup is the one Jesus raised up and proclaimed was His blood. FYI, when you raise a cup and say it's your blood, that's not metaphorical or symbolic language. But where is the Scriptural support for your claim that this was in fact, the third of four cups?

That's because he's using the modern Jewish version of their Seder.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

That's because he's using the modern Jewish version of their Seder.

Well that isn't helpful to this discussion. Also, what happened to "not going outside of Scripture to form his theology"? I could post an article about how the Last Supper wasn't an actual Seder meal, but that doesn't fall within the scope of this discussion.

 

[Arsenios]

Jesus said "IS is NOT IS...?"

No He did not...

You did...

I believe Jesus, not YOU...

Is means is...

YOU are arguing that "is" means "is not"...

You do not believe Jesus when He says:

"...the bread that I will give is my flesh,..."

You think He is saying: "...the bread that I will give IS NOT my flesh..."

I believe Jesus, not you...

How 'bout you??


Arsenios

 

[Lamb]

No He did not...

You did...

I believe Jesus, not YOU...

Is means is...

YOU are arguing that "is" means "is not"...

You do not believe Jesus when He says:

"...the bread that I will give is my flesh,..."

You think He is saying: "...the bread that I will give IS NOT my flesh..."

I believe Jesus, not you...

How 'bout you??


Arsenios

I'll take Jesus for the win!

 

[Particular]

I take Jesus for the win as well. Since Jesus often speaks with figurative language, it is obvious to anyone not indoctrinated in a church dogma/tradition that Jesus is speaking figuratively about his body and blood.
However, I know that the teachings of a church tradition often win out over the teachings of scripture. In this case, it is obvious that some here will lean on their church tradition rather than observe the context of the passages, which show us Jesus is speaking figuratively.

 

[Josiah]

that makes no sense.

THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM, you nailed it.


Zwingli's whole radical reinvention springs from EXACTLY the same thing. God is subject to each persons' brain..... because self is smarter than God, self knows more about the things of God than God, self knows more about everything than God. So.... self reads what God says..... determines what is correct ('that makes sense to me") and what is wrong ("that makes no sense") and then appoints self to correct God when He's wrong. "Well... okay.... God SAID but that makes no sense, that cannot be correct, so I appoint the most brilliant one (well, smarter than God anyway) to correct God by declaring what God SHOULD have said, what ACTUALLY is true." Ah, the ego of it all. IMO, we are subject to God not the other way around. IMO, what God says is true because God can't be incorrect, NOT because "that makes sense to ME, the fallen, sinful, extremely limited human bloat that I am." And of course, your approach immediately jeoprodizes the Two Natures of Christ (which Zwingli ALSO denied), the Trinity and about 100 other things.




.

 

[Josiah]

.




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. 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.


Underline each of the foliowing words, count how often each occurs and whether each occurs after we read the word "is", after the consecration:
IS
BODY
BLOOD
BREAD
WINE/CUP/FRUIT OF THE VINE
CHANGE
BECOME
WAS
SYMBOLIZE
SEEMS
APPEARS
NOT
ACCIDENT
ARISTOTLE
ALCHEMY
TRANSUBSTANTIATION



There are three basic "takes" on this in modern Western Christianity.....



REAL PRESENCE:


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, EXISTENCE, PRESENCE.

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.





.

 

[Josiah]

TRANSUBSTANTIATION:


This is a separate Eucharistic dogma of the individual Roman Catholic Church (alone), officially and dogmatically since 1551. No other church, denomination or faith community accepts this.

The Mystery of Real Presence does raise some questions (unanswered by Scripture). 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."


"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 transubstantiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the "questions" of Real Presense is why it still has the properties of bread and wine. Here these western, medival 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.


The WHOLE POINT of this unique, late RCC dogma is that a very specific CHANGE happens (alchemy's transubstantiation) .... and leaves behind an indistinguishable mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents.


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, Art. "Paschasius Radbertus;" / 6. Samuel Edgar. Tenth complete American edition, p. 405.




.

 

[Josiah]

.



SYMBOLIC PRESENCE:


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 beginning 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" (that conflicted with their medieval understanding of physics) - so since it CANNOT be true, it's not; 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 reinvention was invented by Zwingli in the 16th Century. There is no evidence that ANYONE held to this view for over 1500 years. It springs because of Zwingli's denial of the Two Natures of Christ which caused him to read the texts and declare, "But this cannot be true!" He thus invented a new view. It was almost universally rejected until it was embraced by the Anabaptist movement (google that to learn its nature and beliefs) and in time by "Evangelicals."






One might summerize the 3 common Western views this way:


LUTHERAN: 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.




.

 

[Particular]

THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM, you nailed it.


Zwingli's whole radical reinvention springs from EXACTLY the same thing. God is subject to each persons' brain..... because self is smarter than God, self knows more about the things of God than God, self knows more about everything than God. So.... self reads what God says..... determines what is correct ('that makes sense to me") and what is wrong ("that makes no sense") and then appoints self to correct God when He's wrong. "Well... okay.... God SAID but that makes no sense, that cannot be correct, so I appoint the most brilliant one (well, smarter than God anyway) to correct God by declaring what God SHOULD have said, what ACTUALLY is true." Ah, the ego of it all. IMO, we are subject to God not the other way around. IMO, what God says is true because God can't be incorrect, NOT because "that makes sense to ME, the fallen, sinful, extremely limited human bloat that I am." And of course, your approach immediately jeoprodizes the Two Natures of Christ (which Zwingli ALSO denied), the Trinity and about 100 other things.




.

Thank you. I nailed it. Yet you call it a problem.
Josiah, you hold a quasi-position on communion. You have one foot in the Catholic Church and one foot in the Protestant church. Your denomination is confused on the matter of communion and whether the flesh and blood of Jesus is really present or not really present. Instead of a clear answer, you have a muddy answer that is no doubt pacified by the one size fits all answer of, "mystery."
There is no problem with the Baptist position on communion. It is the position that Jesus and the Apostles held.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

I take Jesus for the win as well. Since Jesus often speaks with figurative language, it is obvious to anyone not indoctrinated in a church dogma/tradition that Jesus is speaking figuratively about his body and blood.
However, I know that the teachings of a church tradition often win out over the teachings of scripture. In this case, it is obvious that some here will lean on their church tradition rather than observe the context of the passages, which show us Jesus is speaking figuratively.

You haven't shown any examples of figurative language used in the text of the Last Supper. You're leaning on the tradition of your church that embraces and promotes the false teaching of Zwingli. Your church even changes one of the elements. Instead of wine, Baptists use grape juice.

You can't change the elements found in the Bible and then claim you're following the Bible and Jesus. Your church rejects His elements, His Supper, His grace, His body and blood, and His forgiveness of sins. But we're supposed to believe you're still standing on the Bible and taking Jesus at His word, right?

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

.



SYMBOLIC PRESENCE:


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 beginning 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" (that conflicted with their medieval understanding of physics) - so since it CANNOT be true, it's not; 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 reinvention was invented by Zwingli in the 16th Century. There is no evidence that ANYONE held to this view for over 1500 years. It springs because of Zwingli's denial of the Two Natures of Christ which caused him to read the texts and declare, "But this cannot be true!" He thus invented a new view. It was almost universally rejected until it was embraced by the Anabaptist movement (google that to learn its nature and beliefs) and in time by "Evangelicals."






One might summerize the 3 common Western views this way:


LUTHERAN: 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.




.

Evangelicals are actually juice people. They don't use wine.

 

[Particular]

You haven't shown any examples of figurative language used in the text of the Last Supper. You're leaning on the tradition of your church that embraces and promotes the false teaching of Zwingli. Your church even changes one of the elements. Instead of wine, Baptists use grape juice.

You can't change the elements found in the Bible and then claim you're following the Bible and Jesus. Your church rejects His elements, His Supper, His grace, His body and blood, and His forgiveness of sins. But we're supposed to believe you're still standing on the Bible and taking Jesus at His word, right?

Sure I have. You simply reject it out of hand because your church taught you something else and you refuse to objectively consider that Jesus words are figurative.

 

[Josiah]

THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM, you nailed it.


Zwingli's whole radical reinvention springs from EXACTLY the same thing. God is subject to each persons' brain..... because self is smarter than God, self knows more about the things of God than God, self knows more about everything than God. So.... self reads what God says..... determines what is correct ('that makes sense to me") and what is wrong ("that makes no sense") and then appoints self to correct God when He's wrong. "Well... okay.... God SAID but that makes no sense, that cannot be correct, so I appoint the most brilliant one (well, smarter than God anyway) to correct God by declaring what God SHOULD have said, what ACTUALLY is true." Ah, the ego of it all. IMO, we are subject to God not the other way around. IMO, what God says is true because God can't be incorrect, NOT because "that makes sense to ME, the fallen, sinful, extremely limited human bloat that I am." And of course, your approach immediately jeoprodizes the Two Natures of Christ (which Zwingli ALSO denied), the Trinity and about 100 other things.



.

I nailed it.

Yup.

you call it a problem.

I do hold it's a problem. Anytime one holds that God is wrong and that self is smarter than God and needs to correct God, yeah, I think that's a problem.

Josiah, you hold a quasi-position on communion. You have one foot in the Catholic Church and one foot in the Protestant church.

Obviously, you've never read my position (you have made that abundantly the case). I do NOT hold to Transubstantiation (AT ALL, one foot or two). There is no Protestant church but there is a minority new movement within Protestantism that has embrace Zwingli's invention: "What Jesus said and Paul penned cannot be true so I appoint me to correct them." I reject BOTH Transubstantiation AND Zwingli's invention because both reject what Jesus said and Paul penned.

Your denomination is confused on the matter of communion and whether the flesh and blood of Jesus is really present or not really present.

No. Real presence MEANS really present.

Read post 309. Read the words that exist rather than ones that do not exist. Quote where it states, "Real presence means not really present." Funny how you can "read" things by inserting "not" before things, funny how you change things 180 degrees from what is actually there. No. Real Presence = really present, NOT not present.




.

 

[Particular]

Jesus is REALLY present always.
"And behold I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Baptist's believe this.
We just don't make a wafer and wine turn into human flesh and human blood.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Sure I have. You simply reject it out of hand because your church taught you something else and you refuse to objectively consider that Jesus words are figurative.

Which church would that be? The Evangelical Free church? The Presbyterian church? The Non-denominational church? The Lutheran church? I've held and defended both positions as a Christian. The symbolic position and the real presence position. So, I actually am very well versed on this topic, so your little brush off above, doesn't stand up to reality.

 

[Lamb]

Jesus is REALLY present always.
"And behold I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Baptist's believe this.
We just don't make a wafer and wine turn into human flesh and human blood.

So Jesus can be present anywhere except where He says He is because it just doesn't make sense to you?

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Jesus is REALLY present always.
"And behold I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Baptist's believe this.
We just don't make a wafer and wine turn into human flesh and human blood.

If Jesus is really present always, why can't His body and blood be present in His supper that He instituted?