COMMUNION: Does "is" mean "is?" Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical

[user1234]

Actually Lutherans and Roman Catholics also believe Jesus saved us. I'm not sure why you think otherwise?

Hi Lamm
I wasn't so much putting forth my OWN opinion of it, but coming to that point (somewhat comically) based on the OP summary. I think atpollard picked it up and maybe said it a bit better. Thx, brother.
Although, it's been my experience that RCs dont really believe Jesus savED them. They consider it a process, hence, the lifelong dos and donts, prayers to mary, days of obligation, acts of contrition, candles, rosaries, works for and hopes so, etc.
I'm not sure of the Lutheran position.

Because every time we ask a question of Lutherans, the answer is "MYSTERY". [Just teasing.]

Lol, you got the flavor if my post, thx.

Just for the record, I read this as humor:

Q. Body and Blood?
Lutheran Answer: (It is a Mystery.)
Catholic Answer: (Make something up.)
Evangelical Answer: (Change the subject.)
[EDIT]
Like all good humor, there is a bit of truth hidden in it:
Lutherans accept the paradox and embrace it as an unknowable mystery.
Catholics look to the authority of the Church to provide a definitive answer.
Evangelicals see EVERYTHING as being symbolic of Jesus and salvation.

Lol ... Hey brother, you editted the Answers while I was typing my reply .... That changes what I was gonna say ... No fair LOL !
I'm glad I don't put myself in any of those labels catagories, though it seems many ppl like to lovingly oblige and put me in one anyway.
I guess it helps the fruit inspectors, lol . GBU

 

[Lamb]

Lutherans aren't afraid to say I don't know. Because scripture doesn't bundle it all up neatly for us There ARE mysteries not revealed but what is revealed is what is important.

 

[Tigger]

Ok, but you missed my point about using it as an example, not making a comparison.
I was afraid that would be confused when I posted that, thats why i tried to explain it.

I was only using the example of the usage of the word IS.
This IS your brain on drugs.
But not really, its an egg frying.

This IS my body ...
But not really, it's bread in my hands.

When you break bread with your brothers and sisters,
Remember that I am the one who's body was broken for you,
I am the one who's blood was shed for you.
You eat, you drink, you share, remember me when you do.
I will with you again ... In My Father's Kingdom.

1. I didn't miss your point but you need to understand that if you post an example to a discussion to illustrate your position it's only fair to still illustrate why it doesn't apply to others in that discussion.

2. But the Lord did say "this is my body" and it's only fair to point out He did not say "But not really, it's bread in my hands."

3. But we who believe in the real presence believe both parts of the Lord's phrasing A. "this is my body' & B. "do this is remembrance of me."

 

[user1234]

1. I didn't miss your point but you need to understand that if you post an example to a discussion to illustrate your position it's only fair to still illustrate why it doesn't apply to others in that discussion.

2. But the Lord did say "this is my body" and it's only fair to point out He did not say "But not really, it's bread in my hands."

3. But we who believe in the real presence believe both parts of the Lord's phrasing A. "this is my body' & B. "do this is remembrance of me."

But thats because I wasnt using it to illustrate my position ... It was just an example of how people use the word IS .... It was not an illustration of my position on the communion wafers or any of that. Just that sometimes ppl say IS but it doesnt mean literally physically.

My position on the wafer turning into flesh and blood is that if that is what is being taught it sounds like cannibalism and I find that appalling.

Sorry, and I hope I cleared up the misunderstanding I may have caused. GBU, Tigger.

 

[atpollard]

1. I didn't miss your point but you need to understand that if you post an example to a discussion to illustrate your position it's only fair to still illustrate why it doesn't apply to others in that discussion.

no comment (I have nothing to say about this.)

2. But the Lord did say "this is my body" and it's only fair to point out He did not say "But not really, it's bread in my hands."

Matthew 26:26-29
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave 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 from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Matthew does say that Jesus "took bread" and broke it (bread). Jesus did not say that this was His blood, but "my blood of the covenant" and 'his blood' was "poured out". The contents of the cup was not poured out, so he was not being 100% literal, was he? In v.29 Jesus goes on to reiterate that the contents of the cup they are drinking is "this fruit of the vine" (wine, not blood). [Mark 14 repeats the story and all of the same distinct points.]

Luke 22:17-20
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Jesus makes it clear that they are to drink the "fruit of the vine" in the cup he has given them (wine) which Jesus will not drink again until he returns with the Kingdom. Again it is the "cup of the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out". Jesus did not say drink my blood, he said his blood was poured out.

Let me be clear what I am saying, and what I am not saying. I am not saying it is foolish for you to believe in the physical presence of the body and blood of Christ in the elements (that is a matter well above my pay grade). I am not saying that Jesus did not say "this is my body" while holding a piece of unleavened bread. I am saying that the most literal moment for eating the body and blood of Christ (Jesus at the Last Supper) does not present the cup as his blood to drink devoid of obvious metaphorical language (the cup was not literally poured out even though Jesus said "this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out". What I am saying is that it is wrong to point to scripture and claim that no honest, reasonable Christian could infer that there was as much metaphor in "this is my body" as there was clearly metaphor in "this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

The Moravian Church has a motto: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas (In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity)
My goal in posting in this topic that makes me uncomfortable is to seek room for LIBERTY and CHARITY in what is not an ESSENTIAL.

3. But we who believe in the real presence believe both parts of the Lord's phrasing A. "this is my body' & B. "do this is remembrance of me."

A subtle point, but it is unlikely that your church is doing "this" (what Jesus and the Early Church did). Most churches (including mine) do 'our personal version of THIS which would be unrecognizable to Jesus or the early saints'. This is not a criticism as much as it is an observed statement of fact.

Do you have one bread that is the one body, broken for you? Does everyone eat of the one body reaffirming unity in Christ and that we are all members of one body with Christ as its head? Or does everyone get a precut, individual wafer reaffirming that we are an army of one - the individual and God, with the rest of the Church just strangers on the road heading in the same general direction.

Again, is not a criticism of anyone or any denomination. This is just me mourning something that has been lost over the centuries, as intimacy has become ritual.

 

[Pedrito]

Some quick feedback on comments made by Snerfle in Post #38 on Page 4.

“Snerfle tips his hat to Pedrito and says, 'How kind of you to say that. Gracias, señor.'”

De nada, mi amigo.

“Snerfle is considering changing his position.”

Pedrito’s chair gets uncomfortable too, at times.

“Snerfle wonders why Pedrito speaks in the third person.”

The reason is both simple and possibly instructive.

A contributor to this forum was once accused and taken to task because that person used the word “I” in their posts. That accusation was probably to divert attention away from thoughts based on Scripture that the accuser found difficult to handle. (Pedrito forgets the detail now, but such illogicality is not without observable precedent and subsequence in various threads.)

Pedrito determined at that time not to leave himself open to that particular style of targeting.

“Sometimes Snerfle is beside himself, too.”

Pedrito would love to listen into the conversations.

 

[Rens]

no comment (I have nothing to say about this.)


Matthew 26:26-29
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave 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 from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Matthew does say that Jesus "took bread" and broke it (bread). Jesus did not say that this was His blood, but "my blood of the covenant" and 'his blood' was "poured out". The contents of the cup was not poured out, so he was not being 100% literal, was he? In v.29 Jesus goes on to reiterate that the contents of the cup they are drinking is "this fruit of the vine" (wine, not blood). [Mark 14 repeats the story and all of the same distinct points.]

Luke 22:17-20
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Jesus makes it clear that they are to drink the "fruit of the vine" in the cup he has given them (wine) which Jesus will not drink again until he returns with the Kingdom. Again it is the "cup of the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out". Jesus did not say drink my blood, he said his blood was poured out.

Let me be clear what I am saying, and what I am not saying. I am not saying it is foolish for you to believe in the physical presence of the body and blood of Christ in the elements (that is a matter well above my pay grade). I am not saying that Jesus did not say "this is my body" while holding a piece of unleavened bread. I am saying that the most literal moment for eating the body and blood of Christ (Jesus at the Last Supper) does not present the cup as his blood to drink devoid of obvious metaphorical language (the cup was not literally poured out even though Jesus said "this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out". What I am saying is that it is wrong to point to scripture and claim that no honest, reasonable Christian could infer that there was as much metaphor in "this is my body" as there was clearly metaphor in "this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

The Moravian Church has a motto: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas (In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity)
My goal in posting in this topic that makes me uncomfortable is to seek room for LIBERTY and CHARITY in what is not an ESSENTIAL.



A subtle point, but it is unlikely that your church is doing "this" (what Jesus and the Early Church did). Most churches (including mine) do 'our personal version of THIS which would be unrecognizable to Jesus or the early saints'. This is not a criticism as much as it is an observed statement of fact.

Do you have one bread that is the one body, broken for you? Does everyone eat of the one body reaffirming unity in Christ and that we are all members of one body with Christ as its head? Or does everyone get a precut, individual wafer reaffirming that we are an army of one - the individual and God, with the rest of the Church just strangers on the road heading in the same general direction.

Again, is not a criticism of anyone or any denomination. This is just me mourning something that has been lost over the centuries, as intimacy has become ritual.

and those tiny glasses so you don't get a germ from someone

 

[Lamb]

and those tiny glasses so you don't get a germ from someone

I don't do the jiggers ...well they're like shot glasses! I do the common cup because "He took the cup..." It's just more meaningful for me.

 

[user1234]

Pedrito would love to listen into the conversations.

Same here, my friend, same here.
Sometimes, if I listen real close, I think I can hear them telling jokes.
They're hard to understand though...
I think they say them in tongues.

 

[Rens]

I don't do the jiggers ...well they're like shot glasses! I do the common cup because "He took the cup..." It's just more meaningful for me.

I don't see that much anymore, but they do break the matzes.

 

[Tigger]

[video]https://youtu.be//no0qB8CVspY[/video]

 

[Tigger]

 

[user1234]

Hi. I enlarged this to read it, but I'm not understanding the commentary. On the right, it says 'Protestants have twisted...'
I tend to get a bit suspicious when someone starts a comment like that.
Who are these 'protestants' I so often hear referred to?
It always seems to be a pejorative term.
Does this mean that the 'protestants' are somehow outside the family of God?
And who are the ones who are NOT protestants?
Are they the denominations that are the correct ones?
I'm just not understanding the who's-who in the labeling in the graphic. Thx.

 

[Tigger]

Hi. I enlarged this to read it, but I'm not understanding the commentary. On the right, it says 'Protestants have twisted...'
I tend to get a bit suspicious when someone starts a comment like that.
Who are these 'protestants' I so often hear referred to?
It always seems to be a pejorative term.
Does this mean that the 'protestants' are somehow outside the family of God?
And who are the ones who are NOT protestants?
Are they the denominations that are the correct ones?
I'm just not understanding the who's-who in the labeling in the graphic. Thx.

Oh, I was just posting it as an example and not intending it to be critiqued by others particularly those of possible opposing views

 

[user1234]

Oh, I was just posting it as an example and not intending it to be critiqued by others particularly those of possible opposing views

Thats seems rather silly then. :;;D: I explained 3 times what my post with the eggs in the pan was about, I cant help it if maybe some ppl refuse to read and comprehend what I wrote. It was pretty clear I wasnt posting it as a position I held ... 1,2,3 times I had to explain that, but some ppl still dont get it ...
Maybe its not their fault, idk.

But I'm trying to find out what the post about the protestants twisting means, bc I dont know who the protestants are actually supposed to be, nor who it is thats making the accusations.
If you dont want to discuss things, what then is your point in posting them?

You posted a graphic accusing a group of ppl of something, I simply wanted to know who they are and what the point is? Isnt that what discussion forums are for? To discuss what's posted?

There's no need to be afraid of the conversation, perhaps you could enlighten me on some of these issues ... I dont often get to discuss this stuff, and was just wondering what the graphic was referring to. We're supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ, so we should be able to communicate. In fact, I believe our Lord expects, and maybe even requires it.

 

[Lamb]

Atpollard, You brought up about the blood being poured out and asked if it was a metaphor. Even though Jesus instituted Holy Communion before His sacrificial death, His blood DID pour out at the cross for us. So, no, it was not a metaphor.

Jesus chose Passover, not as some random day, but to show that He is the lamb whose blood saves.

no comment (I have nothing to say about this.)


Matthew 26:26-29
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave 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 from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Matthew does say that Jesus "took bread" and broke it (bread). Jesus did not say that this was His blood, but "my blood of the covenant" and 'his blood' was "poured out". The contents of the cup was not poured out, so he was not being 100% literal, was he? In v.29 Jesus goes on to reiterate that the contents of the cup they are drinking is "this fruit of the vine" (wine, not blood). [Mark 14 repeats the story and all of the same distinct points.]

Luke 22:17-20
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Jesus makes it clear that they are to drink the "fruit of the vine" in the cup he has given them (wine) which Jesus will not drink again until he returns with the Kingdom. Again it is the "cup of the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out". Jesus did not say drink my blood, he said his blood was poured out.

Let me be clear what I am saying, and what I am not saying. I am not saying it is foolish for you to believe in the physical presence of the body and blood of Christ in the elements (that is a matter well above my pay grade). I am not saying that Jesus did not say "this is my body" while holding a piece of unleavened bread. I am saying that the most literal moment for eating the body and blood of Christ (Jesus at the Last Supper) does not present the cup as his blood to drink devoid of obvious metaphorical language (the cup was not literally poured out even though Jesus said "this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out". What I am saying is that it is wrong to point to scripture and claim that no honest, reasonable Christian could infer that there was as much metaphor in "this is my body" as there was clearly metaphor in "this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

The Moravian Church has a motto: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas (In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity)
My goal in posting in this topic that makes me uncomfortable is to seek room for LIBERTY and CHARITY in what is not an ESSENTIAL.



A subtle point, but it is unlikely that your church is doing "this" (what Jesus and the Early Church did). Most churches (including mine) do 'our personal version of THIS which would be unrecognizable to Jesus or the early saints'. This is not a criticism as much as it is an observed statement of fact.

Do you have one bread that is the one body, broken for you? Does everyone eat of the one body reaffirming unity in Christ and that we are all members of one body with Christ as its head? Or does everyone get a precut, individual wafer reaffirming that we are an army of one - the individual and God, with the rest of the Church just strangers on the road heading in the same general direction.

Again, is not a criticism of anyone or any denomination. This is just me mourning something that has been lost over the centuries, as intimacy has become ritual.

 

[user1234]

The blood of Jesus DOES save. The blood He shed at the cross, not because He was bleeding, but because He shed His blood unto death.
Our sin required the payment of death. Jesus died for us.
The sacrifice was complete and accepted by God on our behalf, as proven by the empty tomb.
It's the shed blood and death at the cross that saved us, we are saved by FAITH in THAT blood He shed, not by DRINKING things.

 

[TurtleHare]

Hi to everyone on all sides, and there seems to be a few ....
I don't mean to seem like I'm implying that anyone is on drugs,
it's just that this old PSA keeps coming to mind.

This is ...
Isn't it possible that when Jesus was saying, This is ... He was
saying it similar to the way it's said in this PSA?
Even tho the Ad itself was a bit skewed, I'm just using the example ...
that This IS your brain doesnt mean they actually were saying
that it was actually literally a persons brain.

Why would it make sense to use some modern advertisement to figure out the text of ancient biblical documents? ;P Let us depart with modern language and revert back to what is at hand and that is what God has had written for us so now let us look to see if there is anywhere else where "is" is used in metaphor and we find there is no such instance.

Let us also while we're at it look to see what else Jesus says that isn't metaphor which is my body given for you and then I ask if you do not believe that Jesus body was given to die for you or was that only metaphor as well since your taking the script as metaphor?

 

[Tigger]

Thats seems rather silly then. :;;D: I explained 3 times what my post with the eggs in the pan was about, I cant help it if maybe some ppl refuse to read and comprehend what I wrote. It was pretty clear I wasnt posting it as a position I held ... 1,2,3 times I had to explain that, but some ppl still dont get it ...
Maybe its not their fault, idk.

But I'm trying to find out what the post about the protestants twisting means, bc I dont know who the protestants are actually supposed to be, nor who it is thats making the accusations.
If you dont want to discuss things, what then is your point in posting them?

You posted a graphic accusing a group of ppl of something, I simply wanted to know who they are and what the point is? Isnt that what discussion forums are for? To discuss what's posted?

There's no need to be afraid of the conversation, perhaps you could enlighten me on some of these issues ... I dont often get to discuss this stuff, and was just wondering what the graphic was referring to. We're supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ, so we should be able to communicate. In fact, I believe our Lord expects, and maybe even requires it.

Silly, yes. I was being a bit of a smart aleck with my reply but you don't quite catch the irony.

Solo scriptura=bible only in it's self is a misnomer in and of it self. The translation version itself that might be used is rot with interpretation not to mention the lens/paradigm the reader or preacher is wearing and interpreting it as. This is not found in the early church or scripture. This is what Roman catholics and Orthodox keep arguing. They would argue that the proper interpretation of scripture is Scripture and their brand of Holy Tradition. Therefore by a process of elimination solo scriptura would had to of arose from within the broader Protestant family. Heck you could even include J.W's as solo scriptura.

Now sola scriptura as property defined tries in encompass the original meaning being related in the scripture using the culture, ecumenical creeds, writings of the ECF's ..... to get a proper interpretation of scripture but not excepting anything not reinforced in scripture or contradicting it.

 

[Lamb]

The blood of Jesus DOES save. The blood He shed at the cross, not because He was bleeding, but because He shed His blood unto death.
Our sin required the payment of death. Jesus died for us.
The sacrifice was complete and accepted by God on our behalf, as proven by the empty tomb.
It's the shed blood and death at the cross that saved us, we are saved by FAITH in THAT blood He shed, not by DRINKING things.

God has chosen to deliver the forgiveness won at the cross by His word, through baptism (which is His word and water) and the Lord's Supper (which is His body and blood shed for us for the forgiveness of sins).

We do not say that our drinking or eating is what gives us forgiveness. In Holy Communion we are actually in communion with God whose blood was shed for us for our forgiveness.