How does it become the Body and the Blood?

[Josiah]

God can forgive and bring us remembrance without the bread and wine

No question. But showing what CAN be doesn't prove your point of what cannot be.

becoming

I invite you to actually read the eucharistic texts.

Here are the words THERE ...

THIS (not SOMETHING ELSE)

IS

MY (Jesus')

BODY

BLOOD

BREAD

WINE

REMEMBRANCE

FORGIVENESS

All Christians for over 1500 years had no problem accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned.

Here are words NOT there...

NOT

ISN'T

CAN'T

JUST KIDDING

SYMBOLIZE

BECOME

CHANGE

TRANSFORM

SACRIFICE

ACCIDENT

IMO, it's better to form doctrine from the words said rather than replacing them with words never said. But that's me. I think it's better to believe Jesus than to tell him "that cannot be true." But again, that's me.

The text of the Bible supercedes your tradition

I agree. Thus my position of accepting and believing the words in the Bible rather than your tradition of replacing them with words not there.






.

 

[Particular]

Yes, but the two events are not comparable. At the Last Supper, the Lord obviously instituted something important and new. He commanded that it be repeated. And he described its new meaning and the content.

None of that applies to him sharing an ordinary meal with his disciples as he often did.


That's part of it.. Here we are discussing the other part.


I once again ask you where the "re-crucify Jesus" notion got into this thread. It's not the topic, and not part of the title.


I agree. And none of that was part of the original post or the title of the thread, either.


OBVIOUSLY, to be remembered is not to be actually present with the ones doing the remembering.

George makes an assumption that the bread becomes the real flesh of Jesus and the wine becomes the real blood of Jesus in his title. He asks how it becomes...

My answer is that it doesn't become. It isn't necessary to become. It never became when Jesus was in the upper room.

Real presence of Jesus in the life of a Christian does not require a sacramental ceremony or elements, it requires faith, which God gifts to his elect.

The assumption of the OP is false, which leads to many false conclusions.

 

[Particular]

No question. But showing what CAN be doesn't prove your point of what cannot be.







I invite you to actually read the eucharistic texts.

Here are the words THERE ...

THIS (not SOMETHING ELSE)

IS

MY (Jesus')

BODY

BLOOD

BREAD

WINE

REMEMBRANCE

FORGIVENESS

All Christians for over 1500 years had no problem accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned.

Here are words NOT there...

NOT

ISN'T

CAN'T

JUST KIDDING

SYMBOLIZE

BECOME

CHANGE

TRANSFORM

SACRIFICE

ACCIDENT

IMO, it's better to form doctrine from the words said rather than replacing them with words never said. But that's me. I think it's better to believe Jesus than to tell him "that cannot be true." But again, that's me.







I agree. Thus my position of accepting and believing the words in the Bible rather than your tradition of replacing them with words not there.






.

That is you.
You pick and choose what you take literally and what you don't take literally.
In this instance, I argue that the context of the Last Supper makes it clear that Jesus is not being literal.

 

[Josiah]

Particular -

You pick and choose what you take literally and what you don't take literally. As doctrine.

Thing is, if it's so obvious that neither Jesus or Paul meant it, why did not one Christian in over 1500 years see that? Did the words of the Bible change in 1562? Did the context change then? And if it's a case where Jesus and Paul are kidding, why the stress on examining oneself, on judgment, even on getting sick? Why the whole point about the necessity of "discerning His body" if there's nothing there to discern?

But I see your point. Some conclude that because that the Trinity just can't be true, thus all the Scriptures used there are not literal. Some conclude that because the Two Natures of Christ can't be true, thus all those Scriptures about Jesus being God and Man well, they MUST not be literal. And those who deny the Resurrection because it can't be true, thus those Scriptures about His resurrection must be figurative and not literal. Some conclude that because the virgin birth of Jesus can't be true, thus those Scripture that say that must be figurative and not literal. Yeah, I see your point. Ancient, universal dogma held until very recently by all Christians because they accept what the Bible says can be tossed out like garbage because it can't be true so must be symbolic. Kind of a Pandora's Box, seems to me.... this whole approach to doctrine of "if it cannot be true, it must be symbolic." Kind of seems that leaves us with ... well.... absolute relativism at most (and probably not that).




.

 

[Particular]

Particular -

You pick and choose what you take literally and what you don't take literally. As doctrine.

Thing is, if it's so obvious that neither Jesus or Paul meant it, why did not one Christian in over 1500 years see that? Did the words of the Bible change in 1562? Did the context change then? And if it's a case where Jesus and Paul are kidding, why the stress on examining oneself, on judgment, even on getting sick? Why the whole point about the necessity of "discerning His body" if there's nothing there to discern?

But I see your point. Some conclude that because that the Trinity just can't be true, thus all the Scriptures used there are not literal. Some conclude that because the Two Natures of Christ can't be true, thus all those Scriptures about Jesus being God and Man well, they MUST not be literal. And those who deny the Resurrection because it can't be true, thus those Scriptures about His resurrection must be figurative and not literal. Some conclude that because the virgin birth of Jesus can't be true, thus those Scripture that say that must be figurative and not literal. Yeah, I see your point. Ancient, universal dogma held until very recently by all Christians because they accept what the Bible says can be tossed out like garbage because it can't be true so must be symbolic. Kind of a Pandora's Box, seems to me.... this whole approach to doctrine of "if it cannot be true, it must be symbolic." Kind of seems that leaves us with ... well.... absolute relativism at most (and probably not that).




.

This is a logically false question. We have no idea if others didn't take it literally. Why? Because there is a limited number of extant documents to work from. The only thing you can say is that the limited documents available seem to promote real flesh and real blood.

What we have, which is exponentially of greater value, is the text of scripture. Scripture clearly shows that Jesus is not being literal, nor is Paul. Therefore, you have to make a decision. Will you trust tradition of your church or will you trust the word of God?

I note that at present you have abandoned scripture as your argument and leaned entirely into your church tradition. That is your choice. I choose to lean entirely into God's word as the sole expression of God and his will for us.

 

[Albion]

In this instance, I argue that the context of the Last Supper makes it clear that Jesus is not being literal.

I am not sure if you are saying that you see it this way simply because you prefer to see it like that...or because there is some reason to think it was not meant in the way Jesus said it.

Can you explain a bit...and point to particular reasons for thinking statements in the Bible account which are absent any wording that suggests a figurative meaning should be taken that way nevertheless? There is virtually no challenge the literal view in the whole of Christian history, East or West, until the Reformation of the 16th century, and then the leading Reformers all roundly condemned the small sects that proposed a figurative approach.

You would think that if the interpretation should be as you have explained it to us, that there would have been SOME, at least, church leaders in earlier times who saw it as you do.

 

[Josiah]

We have no idea if others didn't take it literally.

Well, if anyone read Scripture to say "isn't" rather than "is" then it seems they never voiced that view. For 1500 years PLUS, we have evidence of Christians and Christian churches affirming and believing and accepting what Jesus and Paul said and wrote; we have ZERO evidence of anyone holding to what you claim is "obvious" to YOU. I wonder what happened in the Bible that caused this suddenly.... after over 1500 years.... to be "OBVIOUS?"

And if it's a case where Jesus and Paul are kidding, why the stress on examining oneself, on judgment, even on getting sick? Why the whole point about the necessity of "discerning His body" if there's nothing there to discern?

What we have, which is exponentially of greater value, is the text of scripture.

I agree, which is why I counsel you to notice what Scripture says (rather than your tradition and personal feeling).

Here is what the text actually says....

THIS (not something else)

IS

MY (Jesus')

BODY

BLOOD

BREAD

WINE

REMEMBER

FORGIVENESS.

Here is what the texts do NOT say....

NOT

JUST KIDDING

SYMBOLIZE

ISN'T


Will you trust your new Zwinglian tradition or will you trust the word of God? Will you base dogma on what Scripture says or insist "That cannot be true" and thus base it on things not in the text?




.

 

[Particular]

I am not sure if you are saying that you see it this way simply because you prefer to see it like that...or because there is some reason to think it was not meant in the way Jesus said it.

Can you explain a bit...and point to particular reasons for thinking statements in the Bible account which are absent any wording that suggests a figurative meaning should be taken that way nevertheless? There is virtually no challenge the literal view in the whole of Christian history, East or West, until the Reformation of the 16th century, and then the leading Reformers all roundly condemned the small sects that proposed a figurative approach.

You would think that if the interpretation should be as you have explained it to us, that there would have been SOME, at least, church leaders in earlier times who saw it as you do.

Did Jesus literally give his disciples his own flesh and blood for the meal? I think it's as simple as that. Of course there was no human flesh or human blood for the disciples to eat. Jesus was using a metaphor that the Jewish disciples understood in that particular meal.

 

[Particular]

Well, if anyone read Scripture to say "isn't" rather than "is" then it seems they never voiced that view. For 1500 years PLUS, we have evidence of Christians and Christian churches affirming and believing and accepting what Jesus and Paul said and wrote; we have ZERO evidence of anyone holding to what you claim is "obvious" to YOU. I wonder what happened in the Bible that caused this suddenly.... after over 1500 years.... to be "OBVIOUS?"

And if it's a case where Jesus and Paul are kidding, why the stress on examining oneself, on judgment, even on getting sick? Why the whole point about the necessity of "discerning His body" if there's nothing there to discern?







I agree, which is why I counsel you to notice what Scripture says (rather than your tradition and personal feeling).

Here is what the text actually says....

THIS (not something else)

IS

MY (Jesus')

BODY

BLOOD

BREAD

WINE

REMEMBER

FORGIVENESS.

Here is what the texts do NOT say....

NOT

JUST KIDDING

SYMBOLIZE

ISN'T


Will you trust your new Zwinglian tradition or will you trust the word of God? Will you base dogma on what Scripture says or insist "That cannot be true" and thus base it on things not in the text?




.

Again, you are being extremely literal and narrow minded in your position. I doubt you hold such narrow-minded and extreme literal interpretation with all of the Bible. Yet, here, when Jesus is talking to Jewish men who continually reject the drinking or eating of blood, you demand that your literal, narrow-minded thinking is correct. Yet, in Acts 15, at the Jerusalem Council we see how appalling eating blood is to the Apostles.
Therefore, in light of all we know about God's teaching against physically eating and drinking human meat and blood, your position cannot have any serious merit.

 

[Lamb]

Again, you are being extremely literal and narrow minded in your position. I doubt you hold such narrow-minded and extreme literal interpretation with all of the Bible. Yet, here, when Jesus is talking to Jewish men who continually reject the drinking or eating of blood, you demand that your literal, narrow-minded thinking is correct. Yet, in Acts 15, at the Jerusalem Council we see how appalling eating blood is to the Apostles.
Therefore, in light of all we know about God's teaching against physically eating and drinking human meat and blood, your position cannot have any serious merit.

Calling someone narrow-minded addresses the person so please don't post such things as it's a flame.

 

[Albion]

Did Jesus literally give his disciples his own flesh and blood for the meal?

Now, let's keep the discussion on the theology. I don't believe that the Apostles ate an arm and/or a leg that evening, but I do believe that the bread and wine became in some way his very essence. Shall we stay with the belief system rather than satirizing it in order to win an argument? Thanks.

 

[Particular]

Calling someone narrow-minded addresses the person so please don't post such things as it's a flame.

It is, in this case, a description of the narrow view held by Josiah in the passages talking about the Lord's Supper. It is not used in the context you have interpreted it to mean.

 

[Particular]

Now, let's keep the discussion on the theology. I don't believe that the Apostles ate an arm and/or a leg that evening, but I do believe that the bread and wine became in some way his very essence. Shall we stay with the belief system rather than satirizing it in order to win an argument? Thanks.

That IS the theology we are discussing. If "is means is" then real human flesh and real human blood is the literal interpretation of those passages. You can't side-step and still say "is means is."

So, theologically, the bread cannot literally be Jesus flesh, nor can the wine literally be Jesus blood. They must be representative of Jesus atoning work. This fits with all the other feasts that God setup for Israel. They represented something that was important for Israel to remember. If we are going to keep a covenantal view of God, then we cannot make the Lord's Supper a continual, real, sacrificing of Jesus over and over again.

 

[Lamb]

It is, in this case, a description of the narrow view held by Josiah in the passages talking about the Lord's Supper. It is not used in the context you have interpreted it to mean.

Nope.

Don't tell someone here on the site that they're being narrow minded. Got it?

 

[Josiah]

the bread cannot literally be Jesus flesh, nor can the wine literally be Jesus blood. They must be representative of Jesus atoning work. This fits with all the other feasts that God setup for Israel. They represented something that was important for Israel to remember.

I reject your "it cannot be true" approach to theology. I believe we should look at what the Bible says on this, and it says IS.... MY..... BODY..... BLOOD..... BREAD.....WINE.....REMEMBER.... FORGIVENESS. I don't believe we should ignore what the Bible says (because it cannot be correct) and then base theology on words that are entirely absent, words such as the ones you base everything on: CAN'T..... NOT..... ISN'T...... JUST KIDDING.... SYMBOLIZE..... Forming new theology out of words entirely absent and contradicting clear, obvious words that ARE present seems like a bad way to approach theology. You are simply substituting your tradition for Scripture, all flowing from your own conviction that what Jesus said just cannot be correct (I find that too rather dangerous).

You claim this "can't be true"view, this "is means isn't" perspective, is "OBVIOUS." But you can't answer how you can't find ONE CHRISTIAN for the first 1500 years of Christianity, not one, who thought that was "obvious" or who had that perspective AT ALL. And most Christians still don't. Makes me wonder if what you claim is "obvious" really is.

And I'm still wondering.... why all the emphasis on examining and discerning if there is nothing to examine or discern? Why all the warnings about sickness and even death if all we have is a symbol, like the Nike swoosh? What harm can a swoosh do? Seems to me you are ignoring the context, the imperatives, the warnings, all meaningless (at best!) if actually "is" means "isn't."

I choose to stick with Scripture and reject the new denomination tradition you promote that Zwingli invented 500 years ago. I think it best to place tradition UNDER Scripture not OVER it (even contradicting it).




.




.

 

[Particular]

Nope.

Don't tell someone here on the site that they're being narrow minded. Got it?

Ms Lammchen, I know better than you what I meant by the term. Your disagreement with my use of terms is due to your interpretation, not because I used the term to flame someone. So please refrain from telling me what my intent was with the words I chose.

 

[Particular]

I reject your "it cannot be true" approach to theology. I believe we should look at what the Bible says on this, and it says IS.... MY..... BODY..... BLOOD..... BREAD.....WINE.....REMEMBER.... FORGIVENESS. I don't believe we should ignore what the Bible says (because it cannot be correct) and then base theology on words that are entirely absent, words such as the ones you base everything on: CAN'T..... NOT..... ISN'T...... JUST KIDDING.... SYMBOLIZE..... Forming new theology out of words entirely absent and contradicting clear, obvious words that ARE present seems like a bad way to approach theology. You are simply substituting your tradition for Scripture, all flowing from your own conviction that what Jesus said just cannot be correct (I find that too rather dangerous).

You claim this "can't be true"view, this "is means isn't" perspective, is "OBVIOUS." But you can't answer how you can't find ONE CHRISTIAN for the first 1500 years of Christianity, not one, who thought that was "obvious" or who had that perspective AT ALL. And most Christians still don't. Makes me wonder if what you claim is "obvious" really is.

And I'm still wondering.... why all the emphasis on examining and discerning if there is nothing to examine or discern? Why all the warnings about sickness and even death if all we have is a symbol, like the Nike swoosh? What harm can a swoosh do? Seems to me you are ignoring the context, the imperatives, the warnings, all meaningless (at best!) if actually "is" means "isn't."

I choose to stick with Scripture and reject the new denomination tradition you promote that Zwingli invented 500 years ago. I think it best to place tradition UNDER Scripture not OVER it (even contradicting it).




.




.

I believe we should look at what the Bible says and acknowledge that Jesus often used metaphors and analogies. So, if you intend to be entirely literal, do so with everything Jesus said, not just when it's convenient. Otherwise the context determines the interpretation.

I have addressed the context. We are at an impasse. I believe our conversation is done.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

We pray during the Divine Liturgy that the Holy Spirit will descend and transform the Gifts.

We Confessional Lutherans hold to the Sacramental Union of our Lord's Body and Blood with the Bread and Wine. The almighty power of God effects that union ( indeed, for God it is easy to do so) in the Words of Institution. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a Means of Grace whereby our sins are forgiven, our Faith is increased and the Holy Spirit effects a wonderful union ( physical and spiritual) between us Christians and Jesus Christ. Here's a link that describes the Sacramental Union.. http://everything.explained.today/Sacramental_union/

 

[Particular]

We Confessional Lutherans hold to the Sacramental Union of our Lord's Body and Blood with the Bread and Wine. The almighty power of God effects that union ( indeed, for God it is easy to do so) in the Words of Institution. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a Means of Grace whereby our sins are forgiven, our Faith is increased and the Holy Spirit effects a wonderful union ( physical and spiritual) between us Christians and Jesus Christ. Here's a link that describes the Sacramental Union.. http://everything.explained.today/Sacramental_union/

With respect, your link is a philosophical argument based on presuppositions with no actual biblical support.

Do you have a theological argument rather than a philosophical argument?

 

[George]

Again, you are being extremely literal and narrow minded in your position. I doubt you hold such narrow-minded and extreme literal interpretation with all of the Bible. Yet, here, when Jesus is talking to Jewish men who continually reject the drinking or eating of blood, you demand that your literal, narrow-minded thinking is correct. Yet, in Acts 15, at the Jerusalem Council we see how appalling eating blood is to the Apostles.
Therefore, in light of all we know about God's teaching against physically eating and drinking human meat and blood, your position cannot have any serious merit.

You need to stop thinking like we're cannibals. You're thinking with your human line of thinking and there you get the thought of someone tearing into the right arm of Jesus. It's through the descent and power of the Holy Spirit that the change happens.