Communion - Symbolic or Real?

[Full O Beans]

No. Wrong. The modern RCC and modern Evangelicals completely AGREE: Jesus and Paul didn't mean what they said, they MEANT something different (which is why you refuse to address post # 57 and why you go on and on about what is MEANT rather than said). And both modern views essentially DENY half of the stated realities after the Consecration. Zwinglians deny the body and blood (just symbols), the RCC deny the bread and wine (just accidents) - but both of you EQUALLY reject what is stated.

See post # 57.

Born again Christians the world over do NOT hold to this false teaching.

 

[Josiah]

Born again Christians the world over do NOT hold to this false teaching.

True. MOST Christians since the mid 16th Century dogmatically affirm that Jesus and Paul do NOT mean what they said. Thus, the two new views: the RCC's Transubstantiation/Accidents and the Zwinglian/Evangelical's "Symbolism". Both are based on the premise that Jesus and Paul said what they did BUT they did not MEAN it, which is why both read the words but then shout at the top of their lungs, "BUT.... BUT... you GOTTA understand.... they don't MEAN that! What they MEAN is......."

Both Catholics and Evangelicals have held since the mid 16th Century that the word "IS" doesn't mean is (real, present, exists, received) - the RCC replaced it with Transubstantiation/Accidents. Zwingli with "symbolize/represents." The RCC goes on to essentially deny HALF of that stated realities after the Consecration (the bread and wine), Zwinglian Evangelicals go on to deny the other HALF of the stated realities (the Body and Blood). Same/same.

To watch these two view fight and argue is laughable. Both are doing the EXACT SAME THING. Pot called kettle black. Jesus' log/speck point. Shooting self in foot.


Oh... and I'm sure you don't know this.... but Zwingli invented this new "symbol, represent" view because he leaned toward Nestorianism - the same horrible HERESY you've been defending and promoting in the Mary thread. So it doesn't surprise me that his view appeals to you: it flows from an ancient, dangerous, destructive HERESY that you happen to embrace and promote. So I'm not surprised there.




.

 

[psalms 91]

Born again Christians the world over do NOT hold to this false teaching.

Yup and to say someone is going on and on by one who will not answer a direct question

 

[Josiah]

Would you please underline and/or embolden the word "represent" in the texts?


.

The teaching of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year 1215 AD.

Crickets chirping.



Yes, we know that you disagree with those who insist on adding or subtracting or changing words in the texts - and insist instead that you must add and subtract and change words in the texts.
Yes, we all know you disagree that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they stated and we must tell be told what they actually MEANT - and insist that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they stated and so YOU must tell us what they MEANT.
It's often referred as "Pot calling kettle black."




.




.

 

[Full O Beans]

Spirit-led believers know what Jesus meant. There's no question that He was speaking symbolically. Man's religion has poisoned the well.

 

[Full O Beans]

Crickets chirping.



Yes, we know that you disagree with those who insist on adding or subtracting or changing words in the texts - and insist instead that you must add and subtract and change words in the texts.
Yes, we all know you disagree that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they stated and we must tell be told what they actually MEANT - and insist that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they stated and so YOU must tell us what they MEANT.
It's often referred as "Pot calling kettle black."




.




.

I believe Jesus...not doctrines of men.

 

[Josiah]

I believe Jesus...

And as you know, Jesus never said "represents" or "symbol." So, no, obviously, you don't believe Him - he said no such thing.

Actually, you are parroting verbatim the doctine of a man. His name was Zwingli. He invented your view in the 16th Century. In large part because of his Nestorian leanings.

 

[Full O Beans]

And as you know, Jesus never said "represents" or "symbol." So, no, obviously, you don't believe Him - he said no such thing.

Actually, you are parroting verbatim the doctine of a man. His name was Zwingli. He invented your view in the 16th Century. In large part because of his Nestorian leanings.

It is the work of the Holy Spirit in those He dwells within to open up the meaning of all scripture. Jesus was speaking symbolically, as He did so many times.

 

[Lamb]

Spirit-led believers know what Jesus meant. There's no question that He was speaking symbolically. Man's religion has poisoned the well.

We also believe we are spirit led and yet we are saying that Jesus said This IS my body this IS my blood.

 

[Josiah]

It is the work of the Holy Spirit in those He dwells within to open up the meaning of all scripture.

Then you are believing YOU, not Jesus. YOU are saying "symbol" "represent" but we all know Jesus did not.

You are following a man. You are verbatim parroting the doctrine of a man. His name was Zwingli. Zwingli said "symbol" and "represents." Not Jesus. He invented your view in the 16th Century, in large part because he leaned toward an ancient, condemned, destructive heresy called Nestorianism.

 

[Full O Beans]

Then you are believing YOU, not Jesus. YOU are saying "symbol" "represent" but we all know Jesus did not.

You are following a man. You are verbatim parroting the doctrine of a man. His name was Zwingli. Zwingli said "symbol" and "represents." Not Jesus. He invented your view in the 16th Century, in large part because he leaned toward an ancient, condemned, destructive heresy called Nestorianism.

There is a problem with those who allow themselves to be taught by men and religion, but not by Holy Spirit.

 

[Full O Beans]

We also believe we are spirit led and yet we are saying that Jesus said This IS my body this IS my blood.

He said it, but was speaking symbolically as he did SO MANY TIMES.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... just because those who have tossed out "Real Presence" and come up with alternatives SAY the words does not necessarily mean they MEAN them. ...

Catholics both say "this is my body" and mean it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

He said it, but was speaking symbolically as he did SO MANY TIMES.

You claim that the Lord Jesus Christ was speaking symbolically when he said "this is my body", why is it symbolic?

 

[Stravinsk]

To those who don't believe in symbolic:

Please read post #46

Jesus said He was the bread that came down from heaven. He then said His blood is real drink and his flesh real food.

What then did He say when the disciples had a hard time with it?



"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life"

Flesh profits nothing?? Didn't He just say one must eat it to have eternal life? Yes - clear evidence of Jesus explaining the symbolism in His words.

What's next?

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."

Who betrayed Jesus? Judas. When? At the last supper, when Jesus passed him the bread dipped in wine.

What about the bread that comes (or came) down from Heaven?

Honestly people - the symbolism is so clear. Did little Jesus's come down and feed the Israelites in the wilderness? Or was it bread?

 

[Lamb]

Some people consider John 6 as being eucharistic in nature and some don't.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Some people consider John 6 as being eucharistic in nature and some don't.

If it is not Eucharistic then what is it?

 

[Lamb]

If it is not Eucharistic then what is it?

I admit that I lean to neither side on this verse. I can see both viewpoints but don't know which one is true.

The ones who say it is not eucharistic state that the Lord's Supper wasn't instituted yet and it speaks of faith.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I admit that I lean to neither side on this verse. I can see both viewpoints but don't know which one is true.

The ones who say it is not Eucharistic state that the Lord's Supper wasn't instituted yet and it speaks of faith.

John chapter six lends itself to a Eucharistic understanding and the holy Eucharist requires faith doesn't it so I don't see that there is any disjunction between seeing the chapter as essentially about the holy Eucharist and also essentially about Christian faith in Jesus Christ. Nevertheless I wonder why eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Lord was made so central by him in the discussion if the intention was really to encourage people to read the holy scriptures and believe what Jesus said? And I wonder why the flesh & blood of the Lord is a metaphor for scripture? The choice of flesh & blood and eating as well as drinking the same offended many disciples and led to them departing from the faith so it is hard to understand why the Lord would choose expressions that offended unnecessarily since if he had said "unless you believe what I teach and receive it into your hearts you will have no life in you" ... but I guess people need to have explanations that fit into their theological framework or else they would abandon their theology and find another that offered a better framework for understanding John chapter six.

 

[Josiah]

Catholics both say "this is my body" and mean it.

RC Denomination and Zwinglian "Evangelicals"


In 1551, the RC Denomination abandoned Real Presence (which affirms the word "IS" - the consistent word Jesus and Paul used, affirming that the word is means is) in order to follow a new premise that the Eucharistic texts do not mean what they state. So, "IS" got dumped (in meaning - although I realize the word is chanted as it is in ALL denominations - including LDS - except for the Salvation Army), and the RCC dogmatically replaced it (in meaning) with: changed from one reality to a foreign reality via the very specific, technical mechanism of an alchemic transtantiation. And then dogmatically denied HALF of what follows their (only chanted) word "IS" so that in meaning it's "IS NOT" - denying the reality of the bread and wine, dogmatically insisting that what follows the Consecration usually is NOT, is NOT present, is NOT real, is NOT there - in any usual sense.

Zwingli, around the same time, followed the RCC in rejecting Real Presence. Only he dumped "IS" for: symbolizes. And he dumped the other half of the stated realities after the Consecration, the "IS" (which he still chanted) - only he dumped the Body and Blood.


Same/same


It is truly ironic (and funny) to see the post-Trent Catholics and the Zwinglian "Evangelicals" attack each other on this! Both attacking the other for what they insist is the case. BOTH chanting the word "IS" but insisting Jesus and Paul didn't mean that (RCC - "changed via the specific, particular, technical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation. Zwingli - symbolizes) And BOTH insist that what follows the "IS" .... well, ain't necessarily (RCC rejecting the bread and wine - only ACCIDENTS, and Zwingli rejecting the Body and Blood - only SYMBOLS).

Same/same


Because BOTH insist that Jesus and Paul did not MEAN what they consistently stated (Both shouting, "BUT.... BUT.... you GOTTA understand Jesus didn't MEAN what He said, what He MEANT is ........"), because the premise is these words MEAN something different, they both assume there are only two ways to correct it: Transubstantiation/Accidents or Symbol. Neither recognizes that if we believe that Jesus and Paul actually meant what they said, there's another option. The one the RCC and Zwingli dumped in the 16the Century.


Same/same


To watch modern Catholics and Zwinglian "Evangelicals" argue with each other - rebuking the other for what each equally does - is a powerful example of pot calling kettle black. Jesus' log/speck point. Self shooting self in foot.

John chapter six lends itself to a Eucharistic understanding

Modern Catholics and Zwinglian "Evangelicals" both have this aversion to reading the WORDS. Friend, anyone can impose anything on anything. The reality is, John 6 says NOTHING about the Eucharist (which didn't exist yet). But even if it did, it does NOTHING to support the RCC's new dogmatic replacement of Real Presence. The words "change" "transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "accidents" "seems" "appearance" "is not" appear NO WHERE in the chapter. NOTHING to support the RCC's rejection of Real Presence. And of course, we don't find the words "symbol" and "represents" there either.



Thank you.


A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.


- Josiah



.



.