Communion - Symbolic or Real?

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
If the teachers of first communion class used 'change' rather than transubstantiation then it almost certainly was a concession to the childhood minds of their pupils



Point (you're skillfully evading, friend).... NOT the word "is" (present, real, exists, there) - the consistent and exclusive word that both Jesus and Paul use in all of the Eucharistic texts. And yes, I know you have OFTEN witnessed Catholics argue that only a "CHANGE" happens - they often avoid (like the Plague!) the word "Transubstantiation." But we both know.... the RCC very, very carefully and consistently avoided any generic word for "change" - because the dogma is about a very, very percise, technical kind of change: Transubstantiation. And yes, you have agreed that the RCC "dumped" the bread and wine too..... in 1551, the RCC corrected Jesus and Paul there, too.


And you are confusing the alchemic embrace of "TRANSUBSTANTIATION" (the word the RCC replaces for "is") with the other pagan prescience, wrong idea the RCC dogmatizated in 1551 as it dumped Real Presence: Accidents. The first replaces the word "IS". The second replaces the words "bread and wine" (or rather, modify them so as to strip them of full meaning). Both a ways of insisting that we shouldn't accept what the words state.... don't believe the words. "IS" doesn't mean is, it should rather be "changed via the very precise, technical mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation." And the words "bread" and "wine" (used more often AFTER the consecration than before!) aren't to be believed either, rather it should be "what kinda, sorta SEEMS like bread and wine but are rather just Aristotelian Accidents."


Again, it's always AMAZING to me to see post-Trent Catholics and Zwinglian "Evangelicals" debate this point! Amazing! Incredible! Both abandoned Real Presence, about the same time. Both deny that the meaning of is is is (present, real, received) - one replacing it with "symbolizes" and the other with "changes via the precise, technical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation." Both reject that what follows the is... well.... is (in a full sense anyway). The RCC rejects the bread and wine, the Zwinglian Evangelicals the body and blood. One uses hermeneutics to deny Real Presence, the other two ancient, prescience (wrong) theories. Same/Same. BOTH shout "look at the text - but don't believe it!" It's really amazing to witness the debate. I have for many years. Self shooting self in foot.




the word Transubstantiation tells us only that the bread IS the body of Christ

No, the word "is" means is. The consistent word Jesus and Paul uses does that, the word "IS." The RCC dumped that and dogmatically replaced it with: "changes from one reality to a different, foreign one via the very precise, technical mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation."

And when bread and wine are said to "is" - that's deleted, too. "Are NOT - just rather something taht kinda, sorta, in a carnal way SEEM like bread and wine but aren't, they are just Aristotelian Accidents."




Thank you.


A blessed season of Lent to you and yours....


- Josiah
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,198
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
...

No, the word "is" means is.

...

If the only matter was what "is" means then this thread would be superfluous but you and I both know that to those who see only a metaphor in "this is my body" it is evident that "is" means "means" or "represents" rather than meaning "is". And while you object to the word 'transubstantiation' because you think it means 'change' (as your first communion class evidently used the word 'change') the simple scriptural truth is that "this is my body" does not say "this means my body" or "this represents my body" as some of our interlocutors allege.
 
Last edited:

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
If the only matter was what "is" means then this thread would be superfluous but you and I both know that those who see only a metaphor in "this is my body" it is evident that for some, at least, "is" means "means" or "represents" rather than meaning "is". And while you object to the word 'transubstantiation' because you think it means 'change' (as your first communion class evidently used the word 'change') the simple scriptural truth is that "this is my body" does not say "this means my body" or "this represents my body" as some of our interlocutors allege.

Correct. In the 16th Century, both the RCC and Zwingli "dumped" Real Presence - inventing the two alternatives: Transubstantiation/Accidents and Symbol. Neither could accept the Eucharistic words and thus Real Presence.

Which is why it's always AMAZING to me to see post-Trent Catholics and Zwinglian "Evangelicals" debate this point! Amazing! Incredible! Both abandoned Real Presence, about the same time. Both deny that the meaning of is is is (present, real, received) - one replacing it with "symbolizes" and the other with "changes via the precise, technical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation." Both reject that what follows the is... well.... is (in a full sense anyway). The RCC rejects the bread and wine, the Zwinglian Evangelicals the body and blood. One uses hermeneutics to deny Real Presence, the other two ancient, prescience (wrong) theories. Same/Same. BOTH shout "look at the text - but don't believe it!" It's really amazing to witness the debate. I have for many years. Self shooting self in foot.

Now, again, of these two alternatives to Real Presence, I much prefer the new RCC one. At least it kept the Body and Blood (it could be argued, humanly, that the bread and wine ain't so important... maybe). But of course, it destroyed any textual reason to believe such. I mean, since it dogmatically declared that the words aren't to be believed, aren't to be accepted... that "is" doesn't mean is... that what is stated as is, well, probably isn't.... then why believe that the Body and Blood ARE? There's no reason to; the RCC destroyed any basis for believing the words and thus that body and blood are there (in any full sense).



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah
 
Last edited:

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,198
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
... they [Catholic Christians] often avoid (like the Plague!) the word "Transubstantiation." ...

I do not know if this will be read or ignored but it is what the Catholic Church teaches in her Catechism - a reliable source of Catholic Teaching that certainly outranks sketchily remembered first communion classes.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION is the scholastic term used to designate the unique change of the Eucharistic bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. “Transubstantiation” indicates that through the consecration of the bread and the wine there occurs the change of the entire substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ, and of the entire substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ—even though the appearances or “species” of bread and wine remain (1376). (Catechism of the Catholic Church Glossary)


The presence of Christ by the power of his word and the Holy Spirit

1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church:195 in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"196 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,197 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."198

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."199 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."200 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."201

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.202

and St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. the power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed.... Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.203

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.205

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."206

1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end,"207 even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us,208 and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love:

The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease.209

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"210

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.

Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.211
=====
195 ⇒ Rom 8:34; cf. LG 48.
196 ⇒ Mt 18:20.
197 Cf. ⇒ Mt 25:31-46.
198 SC 7.
199 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 73, 3c.
200 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651.
201 Paul VI, MF 39.
202 St. John Chrysostom, prod. Jud. 1:6: PG 49, 380.
203 St. Ambrose, De myst. 9, 50; 52: PL 16, 405-407.
204 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1642; cf. ⇒ Mt 26:26 ff.; ⇒ Mk 14:22 ff.; ⇒ Lk 22:19 ff.; ⇒ 1 Cor 11:24 ff.
205 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.
206 Paul VI, MF 56.
207 ⇒ Jn 13:1.
208 Cf. ⇒ Gal 2:20.
209 John Paul II, Dominicae cenae, 3.
210 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 75, 1; cf. Paul VI, MF 18; St. Cyril of
Alexandria, In Luc. 22, 19: PG 72, 912; cf. Paul VI, MF 18.
211 St. Thomas Aquinas (attr.), Adoro te devote; tr. Gerard Manley
Hopkins.
 
Last edited:

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
I do not know if this will be read or ignored but it is what the Catholic Church teaches in her Catechism - a reliable source of Catholic Teaching that certainly outranks sketchily remembered first communion classes.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION is the scholastic term used to designate the unique change of the Eucharistic bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.


Thanks for confirming my point.

So "IS" (the exclusive, sole, singular word used by Jesus and Paul) is dumped. And replaced - dogmatically - with a "scholastic" term, a very, very precise, technical term that does not mean "change" in some general sense but refers to a very, very, very specific kind of change - the one of alchemy. So "is" (present, real, there, is) is dumped and replaced with Alchemy and change. Don't accept the word Jesus and Paul consistently used, the word in the text. Don't believe the words of the texts. Then you have the GULL to tell Zwingian "Evangelicals" that they don't accept the words in the text! Amazing! Incredible!



there occurs the change of the entire substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ, and of the entire substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ

Of course, the text doesn't say that..... just as it doesn't say "and there is now a symbol, a metaphor, to remind us of....."

IF the RCC wanted to retain Real Presence, it would have kept the word "IS." IS mean present, real, exists, there, received.




—even though the appearances or “species” of bread and wine remain (1376). (Catechism of the Catholic Church Glossary)


ACCIDENT. Yup, can't believe Jesus and Paul when they speak of bread and wine either. Don't accept the words, don't believe them.


Here's the deal: The RCC is now shouting - dogmatically! - that what is STATED nonetheless..... isn't real, isn't there! At least not in any normal or full sense. Yeah, Paul speaks of bread and wine AFTER the consecration more than he speaks of body and blood after the consecration... yeah, both are stated as "IS." But just because the text SAYS something is - well, that doesn't mean it IS! That's the whole point of this new RCC alternative to Real Presence. Yeah, there are 4 things spoken of after the "IS" (which the RCC deleted, rejected, denied). Body... blood... bread... wine. All spoken of IDENTICALLY... BUT - the RCC shouted dogmatically in 1551 - just 'cuz Jesus said it and Paul penned it don't make it so! HALF of this really is... and HALF of this sorta ain't. Don't believe what the words say!


Correct. The RCC will go to any length to avoid saying these things IS. Nope, just a "species" (the modern term Catholics use since they desire to distance themselves from Aristotle - but as you admitted, the dogma IS the dogmatization of Aristotle's very weird - and now rejected by all but the RCC - theory. When the Eucharistic texts speak of the realities AFTER the Consecration... after the IS..... well, such MAY be real, and MAY not be real (in any real, full sense anyway). Then Catholics have the GULL to rebuke Zwingians who state THE INDENTICAL, SAME THING. It is amazing.




conversion


To dump Real Presence, it's necessary to delete the word "is." Note how carefully, our craftfully the RCC does this.



The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread,


Jesus said no such thing. Paul penned no such thing. Note how carefully the word "IS" is rejected.





This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation


Yup. Not one of the many Latin generic words for "change" but the very, very technical, precise word from Alchemy for a very certain kind of change: that of alchemy. Here we have the RCC's replacement for the word "IS" that Jesus and Paul consistenly and exclusively used.


"IS" don't mean "is." Half of what is stated after the Consecration isn't (really, anyway). Then you have the GULL to yell at Zwinglian Evangelicals that they don't accept the words of the text, they don't accept as fully real what follows the consecration. It is amazing. And of course, they scream the same thing back at post-Trent Catholics! Shooting self in foot. Three fingers pointing back at self. Log/speck.


My Greek Orthodox friend, "The Roman Church can't leave WELL enough alone but insists on messing it all up with its silly theories." And, "This proves how the Roman Church just can't shut up."

But the irony I see.... for both of these alternatives to Real Presence.... is how clearly the see the error in the other but don't see how they do EXACTLY the VERY SAME THING. Neither can accept the words.




Thank you.


- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,282
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Explain this to me then please, I visited a Catholic church a few times and I am a Christian but was not allowed to take communion and the explanation that was given was because of this very belief which of course I do not hold, I believe symbolic rather than actual change. Now I thought as a Christian I would be welcome to partake of communion in any church that callls itself Christian, so how does this line up with what you are saying?
 

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
Bill -

IMO, you raise a separate issue that deserves a separate thread (and hopefully, not a hijack of THIS one).

But I'll just say this: There is an alternative to the two views you expressed: 1) That an alchemic transubstantiation "change" happened leaving behind Aristotelian Accidents" and 2) We have a symbol here. Those are not the only two views, there's also Real Presence. See post # 3.

Thanks!



- Josiah
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,282
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
OK I thought it fit with the thread but I have no desire to hijack the thread, all I will say is that it left a bad taste in my mouth and I have not set foot in a Catholic church since and wont. I will leave you now
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Explain this to me then please, I visited a Catholic church a few times and I am a Christian but was not allowed to take communion and the explanation that was given was because of this very belief which of course I do not hold, I believe symbolic rather than actual change. Now I thought as a Christian I would be welcome to partake of communion in any church that callls itself Christian, so how does this line up with what you are saying?

Would you step into your neighbor's home and demand to join them at the table if you had disagreement with them?
 

George

Tis Theos Megas
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
910
Age
29
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Explain this to me then please, I visited a Catholic church a few times and I am a Christian but was not allowed to take communion and the explanation that was given was because of this very belief which of course I do not hold, I believe symbolic rather than actual change. Now I thought as a Christian I would be welcome to partake of communion in any church that callls itself Christian, so how does this line up with what you are saying?

OK I thought it fit with the thread but I have no desire to hijack the thread, all I will say is that it left a bad taste in my mouth and I have not set foot in a Catholic church since and wont. I will leave you now

Hey bill,

Started a separate thread for that since I knew this would be asked in this thread and it's a good question. ;)
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Explain this to me then please, I visited a Catholic church a few times and I am a Christian but was not allowed to take communion and the explanation that was given was because of this very belief which of course I do not hold, I believe symbolic rather than actual change. Now I thought as a Christian I would be welcome to partake of communion in any church that calls itself Christian, so how does this line up with what you are saying?

i dont see it as a separate topic . this is about symbolic? or real?as in the op title .

-it is both . in the spirit it is spiritual, but in the natural it is natural

there is a spiritual occurrence taking place in the spirit
and there is a natural taking place in the natural .

the same as water baptism ..being immersed in water is an occurrence in the natural.. but it has huge spiritual impact.
so it is with communion .
when I partake of communion .. i know full well the bread ..is bread and remains bread and the wine remains wine

and i know full well that i partake of the SPiritual source of all life ,the bread of life who is the lord Jesus .
 
Last edited:

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
.


Back to the subject of the thread.....




Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom."


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 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.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."





1. What did Jesus and Paul state? "Is?" "Changes via an alchemic transubstantiation?" " Represents, symbolizes?"


2. What realities does Paul state after the Consecration? Just body and blood? Just bread and wine? All 4? None of those? Are HALF real and HALF not really real but kinda, sorta partly real?


3. How do the printed verbatim words of the texts confirm your position?




- Josiah




.
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
circular .. a person wil say this and you wil say that and this and that and this and that will ensue :bike:
 

Full O Beans

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
727
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Since it was touched upon in the other thread, I thought I'd start a thread like this. There was an old thread about this a few months back, but thought it would be better to start a new one.

So do you believe it's merely symbolic and nothing more than wine.... or grape juice(*shudders*) and bread? Or do you believe it becomes the actual Body and Blood of Christ?

The celebration of the Lord's Table, or Communion is a symbolic feast that commemorates the broken body and the shed blood of Jesus. There is nothing in scripture and nothing that Jesus teaches that can possibly cause a person to believe in transubstantiation. That is a firmly-held aberration by too many.
 

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
circular .. a person wil say this and you wil say that and this and that and this and that will ensue


Noting "circular" at all. Indeed, I didn't make any point AT ALL - circular or otherwise. Try again:

You're very big on what WORDS are and are not DIRECTLY stated. Okay. Read the words below. The answer the questions based on what WORDS are DIRECTLY given (rather than what isn't given). Give it a shot. Or not.



Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom."


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 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.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."




1. What did Jesus and Paul state? "Is?" "Changes via an alchemic transubstantiation?" " Represents, symbolizes?"


2. What realities does Paul state after the Consecration? Just body and blood? Just bread and wine? All 4? None of those? Are HALF real and HALF not really real but kinda, sorta partly real?


3. How do the printed verbatim words of the texts confirm your position?




- Josiah



.
 

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
The celebration of the Lord's Table, or Communion is a symbolic feast that commemorates the broken body and the shed blood of Jesus. There is nothing in scripture and nothing that Jesus teaches that can possibly cause a person to believe in transubstantiation. That is a firmly-held aberration by too many.


Both new 16th Century inventions - Transubstantiation (RCC) and Symbolism (Zwingli) share the view that Jesus and Paul didn't mean what they said. There IS an alternative to both of these. Those aren't the only two views. There is another presumption... and thus other view.




.
 

Full O Beans

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
727
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Both new 16th Century inventions - Transubstantiation (RCC) and Symbolism (Zwingli) share the view that Jesus and Paul didn't mean what they said. There IS an alternative to both of these. Those aren't the only two views. There is another presumption... and thus other view.




.
Jesus and Paul spoke truth. Their sincerity is not to be questioned. What is, is the hearts and minds of men who created such a nonsensical idea as transubstantiation.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jesus and Paul spoke truth. Their sincerity is not to be questioned. What is, is the hearts and minds of men who created such a nonsensical idea as transubstantiation.

Please post scripture to back up your view points.
 

Full O Beans

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
727
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Please post scripture to back up your view points.
I use the same scripture you do. Maybe Josiah should introduce the scriptures he is thinking of.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Top Bottom