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

[MoreCoffee]

Real PHYSICAL or SPIRITUAL Presence?
Christ had two natures, one corporal that you could touch and one eternal, spiritual and divine.
Luther and you both keep stressing REAL PRESENCE without actually touching the issue of His two natures (Physical/Spiritual) in a way that I can understand.
(Hence my reason for asking a simple direct question.)

Two natures yes but one person. If you touched Jesus you were touching God. There was one person not two. One being not two.

 

[user1234]

Real PHYSICAL or SPIRITUAL Presence?
Christ had two natures, one corporal that you could touch and one eternal, spiritual and divine.
Luther and you both keep stressing REAL PRESENCE without actually touching the issue of His two natures (Physical/Spiritual) in a way that I can understand.
(Hence my reason for asking a simple direct question.)

Hi
No offense to Luther or any Lutherans, but I'm not understanding this either.
What exactly does it mean that His Real Presence is in the communion wafer.

Also, when does the 'infusion' (I dont know the proper term) take place?
I understand the Rcatholics believe the priest says something that causes this to occur at that time, but is it the same in a Lutheran church? Is there a specific time or prayer said that causes the transformation or infusion to take place?

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
I understand the Rcatholics believe the priest says something that causes this [cause His Real Presence is in the communion wafer] to occur at that time ...

That appears to be an incorrect characterisation of Catholic Church teaching.

 

[user1234]

That appears to be an incorrect characterisation of Catholic Church teaching.

APPEARS lol ... Good word.

I asked a Rcatholic when does the wafer become the body and blood of Christ?
Is it that when they are stamped out at the machine? When they arrive at the churches? Sometime during services? And they said it was when the priest says some words during service.
If that's not correct in your opinion, can you then tell us when you think it happens?
Otherwise, we will have to go by the answer given.

Also, wondering when this occurs in other denominations.

The below was not originally posted by snerfle
Originally Posted by Snerfle NOT EXACTLY WHAT SNERFLE SAID. THIS BELOW WAS A PIECING TOGETHER BY MORECOFFEE
...
I understand the Rcatholics believe the priest says something that causes this[cause His Real Presence is in the communion wafer] to occur at that time ...

 

[Josiah]

No offense to Luther or any Lutherans, but I'm not understanding this either.
What exactly does it mean that His Real Presence is in the communion wafer.

See the opening post. http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical


Read the Scriptures and then the part about Real Presence. IF you have any questions, please ask. It MAY be that Lutherans have an answer, it may be they do not. Lutherans do not assume that all questions a human might ask THEREFORE has a divine, dogmatic, direct "answer." Nor do they assume that one - LUTHERANS - must, uniquely and solely - have THE answer cuz God only speaks to Lutherans and only Lutherans listen.

I understand the Rcatholics believe the priest says something that causes this to occur at that time, but is it the same in a Lutheran church?

No.

Is there a specific time or prayer said that causes the transformation or infusion to take place?

Lutherans do not teach that a "change" in the elements happens... the word "change" never appears in the text, the word is "is."



Thank you.


Pax Christi



- Josiah

 

[user1234]

See the opening post. http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical


Read the Scriptures and then the part about Real Presence. IF you have any questions, please ask. It MAY be that Lutherans have an answer, it may be they do not. Lutherans do not assume that all questions a human might ask THEREFORE has a divine, dogmatic, direct "answer." Nor do they assume that one - LUTHERANS - must, uniquely and solely - have THE answer cuz God only speaks to Lutherans and only Lutherans listen.





No.







Lutherans do not teach that a "change" in the elements happens... the word "change" never appears in the text, the word is "is."



Thank you.


Pax Christi



- Josiah

Hi Josiah
Thanks
Yes I didnt find in the scriptures Real Presence, but I admit I haven't been looking in all the different resources or versions, so it may be.
So I'm asking the questions ..... Maybe I need to re-word it. Is the communion wafer ALWAYS the body? (and blood? if it's that also ...I'm not sure of the teaching on that either)In other words, if it doesnt 'become' at some point, like I was told it does in the RCatholic churches, is it just accepted that it always IS, as in the original This IS my body, whether on the alter or still in storage or wherever it may be?
This is a very confusing issue for me, I admit.

 

[atpollard]

Two natures yes but one person. If you touched Jesus you were touching God. There was one person not two. One being not two.

OK, as far as it goes, but I have this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Hypostatic Union:
A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, "Mund.", IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul's Epistles (2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 1:3-3:14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (On the Holy Trinity V.8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian hypostasin) (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. For further explanation and bibliography see: INCARNATION; JESUS CHRIST; MONOPHYSITISM; NATURE; PERSON.

Now, if you are claiming that the totality of the person of Christ appears at the Communion Table, is that not the definition of the Second Coming and the End of the Age? I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Second Coming is fulfilled at each Communion, so I suspect that it is not the totality of the person of Christ that transsubstantiates with the bread and wine.

So I will ask you what nature is the bread, the human or divine or some of each?
As I said, it cannot be the fullness of the person of Christ without fulfilling scriptures you are not prepared to claim are fulfilled.

 

[MoreCoffee]

OK, as far as it goes, but I have this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Hypostatic Union: <deleted for brevity>

Now, if you are claiming that the totality of the person of Christ appears at the Communion Table, is that not the definition of the Second Coming and the End of the Age? I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Second Coming is fulfilled at each Communion, so I suspect that it is not the totality of the person of Christ that transsubstantiates with the bread and wine.

So I will ask you what nature is the bread, the human or divine or some of each?
As I said, it cannot be the fullness of the person of Christ without fulfilling scriptures you are not prepared to claim are fulfilled.

You either asked or your words implied the following questions:

• Is Christ wholly present in the holy Eucharist? Yes, Jesus Christ the Lord is wholly present in the holy Eucharist. He is present in his body, blood, soul, and divinity, whole and undivided, entire and not in portions, thus one kind of communing is communing with the whole Christ - so partaking of the host or the chalice is partaking of the whole Christ.
• Is holy communion the end of the ages? Not exactly and yet yes it is the end of the ages and the second coming.
  • Not exactly insofar as it is a foretaste rather than the consummation of the state of being enlightened, and of having tasted the heavenly gift, and of having shared in the Holy Spirit, and having tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come.
  • And yes insofar as the divine liturgy is heaven come to Earth thus it is the last day, the final judgement, the blessed state, the end of wickedness, the destruction of all that is harmful in this current age. Time is a created being it has meaning to us here and now yet in eternity time is not master and events are not tied to the sequence and irretrievable passing that is our experience of time here and now on Earth. Thus the divine liturgy is - for those with eyes to see it - the Kingdom of God on earth.
• Is it the second coming? Yes and no. \
  • Yes insofar as it is Christ who comes and he comes in eternity and eternity is (in a sense) not subject to change so the coming of the holy Eucharist is the coming at the end of the ages.
  • No insofar as the time for the last day and the last judgement and the return of the Lord to judge the living and the dead has not yet come for us here on Earth. We experience time as a succession of moments. Each moment arrives and then is passed and can never be returned to in this world of time/space. So the moment when the last trump is heard and the dead rise and the living are transformed is not this moment as I type.
• What is transubstantiation? Don't be alarmed. You did not ask the question but it was alluded to in your discussion of the eucharist so I thought a clear definition of the theological term might be helpful. That is what this answer is for. To offer a clear definition of the theological term Transubstantiation. Here it is. TRANSUBSTANTIATION: A term used to describe the unique change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. By the consecration, the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood. (Taken from: U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults) Unpacking the definition is something of a journey into philosophy as it is used and understood by Christians.
  
  The Eucharistic Prayer (Jesus blessed and gave thanks). This is the heart of the Eucharistic Liturgy, which unfolds in the following manner.
  • Thanksgiving (expressed especially in the Preface): In this prayer, we thank God the Father, through Christ in the Spirit, for the gifts of creation, salvation, and sanctification.
  • Acclamation: The whole congregation joins with the angels and saints in singing or saying the Sanctus (Holy, Holy).
  • Epiclesis (Invocation): The Church implores the power of the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine offered by human hands into Christ’s Body and Blood.
  • Institution Narrative and Consecration: The priest proclaims Jesus’ words at the Last Supper over the bread and wine. “The power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present, under the species of bread and wine, Christ’s Body and Blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross for all” (CCC, no. 1353).
  • Anamnesis (The Remembrance): We recall the death and Resurrection of Christ and look forward to his glorious return.
  • Second Epiclesis: The Holy Spirit is invoked upon the gathered community, to bring unity to the worshippers who will receive Holy Communion.
  • Intercessions: With the whole Communion of Saints and all God’s people on earth, we pray for the needs of all the members of the Church, living and dead.
  • Doxology and Great Amen: We conclude the Eucharistic Prayer with praise of God the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit. This glorification is confirmed and concluded by the people’s acclamation “Amen.”
  Communion Rite (Jesus broke the bread and gave his Body and Blood). After the Lord’s Prayer, the Lamb of God is sung or said during the breaking of the Body of Christ, or fraction, then we receive the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion. The Communion Rite concludes with a closing prayer.​
  In Catholic theology the way we pray (in the liturgy) is the best description of what we believe and teach. Lex Orandi lex credendi.

 

[Rens]

Hi Josiah
Thanks
Yes I didnt find in the scriptures Real Presence, but I admit I haven't been looking in all the different resources or versions, so it may be.
So I'm asking the questions ..... Maybe I need to re-word it. Is the communion wafer ALWAYS the body? (and blood? if it's that also ...I'm not sure of the teaching on that either)In other words, if it doesnt 'become' at some point, like I was told it does in the RCatholic churches, is it just accepted that it always IS, as in the original This IS my body, whether on the alter or still in storage or wherever it may be?
This is a very confusing issue for me, I admit.

I dont understand what Lutherans believe either.
But it's not just some bread for evangelicals or whatever I am either. You can't just eat it if you haven't forgiven someone. Then after the service the kids eat the rest like it's candy, well used to, parents in our church would let their kids eat it. So either that or throw it away. First its just a pack of matzes you buy. It means nothing.
When you eat it in faith during the service it represents taking part of His body and blood. If people drop in later and take it later, same thing. If you just drink the rest of the pack of juice afterwards with fellowship it's just juice.
I think you should eat it all actually, not break too much and not leave over. If it represents His body it's weird to have leftovers. I think the disciples just ate it all. Wonder if Jesus ate it btw.

 

[Rens]

Two natures yes but one person. If you touched Jesus you were touching God. There was one person not two. One being not two.

One and three at the same time. The Holy Spirit performed the miracles. In Him the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily.

 

[Lamb]

Hi Josiah
Thanks
Yes I didnt find in the scriptures Real Presence, but I admit I haven't been looking in all the different resources or versions, so it may be.
So I'm asking the questions ..... Maybe I need to re-word it. Is the communion wafer ALWAYS the body? (and blood? if it's that also ...I'm not sure of the teaching on that either)In other words, if it doesnt 'become' at some point, like I was told it does in the RCatholic churches, is it just accepted that it always IS, as in the original This IS my body, whether on the alter or still in storage or wherever it may be?
This is a very confusing issue for me, I admit.

The Lutherans believe that there is bread and there is body and there is wine and there is blood. Our terminology is we receive the true body and blood in, with and under the bread and wine. We do not try to explain it further because scriptures don't go into detail but we trust Jesus when He says This is my body and This is my blood.

It is rumored that Luther in his 1528 treatise on the Lord’s Supper said, "If you can explain how Christ is both fully God and man I will explain how the bread and wine are his body and blood."

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Lutherans believe that there is bread and there is body and there is wine and there is blood. Our terminology is we receive the true body and blood in, with and under the bread and wine. We do not try to explain it further because scriptures don't go into detail but we trust Jesus when He says This is my body and This is my blood.

It is rumored that Luther in his 1528 treatise on the Lord’s Supper said, "If you can explain how Christ is both fully God and man I will explain how the bread and wine are his body and blood."

"In, with, under" is every bit as much an explanation as is "Transubstantiation" It's just three English words where Transubstantiation is one Latin word. Literally translated transubstantiation means across substantiation and substantiation means something like "real essence" so if one is literal minded enough then transubstantiation is in English "across real essence" and the idea is that even though the bread and wine still have all the properties of bread and wine they are in reality the body and blood of Christ. And to forestall certain kinds of heresy and various kinds of superstition the Catholic Church goes out of its way to say that the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is really present. It isn't in, with, or under, it simply IS the body and blood (soul and divinity) of Christ.

 

[user1234]

"In, with, under" is every bit as much an explanation as is "Transubstantiation" It's just three English words where Transubstantiation is one Latin word. Literally translated transubstantiation means across substantiation and substantiation means something like "real essence" so if one is literal minded enough then transubstantiation is in English "across real essence" and the idea is that even though the bread and wine still have all the properties of bread and wine they are in reality the body and blood of Christ. And to forestall certain kinds of heresy and various kinds of superstition the Catholic Church goes out of its way to say that the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is really present. It isn't in, with, or under, it simply IS the body and blood (soul and divinity) of Christ.

This gets moreconvoluted by the minute. I asked another Rcatholic, they said it becomes it (Him, Jesus) when the priest says certain words. You said that misrepresented the RCchurch, so I asked you to please explain when it becomes Him so we can understand it better, but you have yet to explain. Now you're saying that the RCchurch has it the same as the Lutherans, they just use different words for transubstantiation. If that's correct, it's quite confusing.

The Lutherans believe that there is bread and there is body and there is wine and there is blood. Our terminology is we receive the true body and blood in, with and under the bread and wine. We do not try to explain it further because scriptures don't go into detail but we trust Jesus when He says This is my body and This is my blood.

It is rumored that Luther in his 1528 treatise on the Lord’s Supper said, "If you can explain how Christ is both fully God and man I will explain how the bread and wine are his body and blood."

Thx Lamm
I'm not really asking the 'How' of it ..... How God does some things is admittedly above our paygrade. I'm more asking the 'When'. i.e. When does it become Him, at a certain time a prayer is said during the service, a la Rcatholic service? Or is it just always IS Him, before, during, after, as Rens seemed to be asking. I think.
(Oh, and I'm only asking if you can help us know the Lutheran teaching on this, I'm not questioning or challenging your own personal views, which everyone is free to have, of course, I suppose.) Just wondering what the Lutheran church teaches on these things, the degree of importance/necessity regarding salvation and walk, how they agree or differ from RC teaching and other churches, etc. That kind of thing. Thanks, GBU.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This gets moreconvoluted by the minute. I asked another Rcatholic, they said it becomes it (Him, Jesus) when the priest says certain words. You said that misrepresented the RCchurch, so I asked you to please explain when it becomes Him so we can understand it better, but you have yet to explain. Now you're saying that the RCchurch has it the same as the Lutherans, they just use different words for transubstantiation. If that's correct, it's quite confusing.

If you do want to know what the Catholic Church teaches about the holy Eucharist (rather than rely on off the cuff remarks by myself or your Catholic friend) then take somme time to read what is said in the USA Catechism for Adults. It is available online. It is free. And it is couched in USA english that people from the USA (presumably) understand better than my non-USA english. Here is the URL for the USA Catechism for Adults, http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/uscca/#241 . I previously gave an answer to your question. I started by saying "I do not know how God works his miracles". But a longer and more careful explanation may suit your needs better. The Catechism may help with that. Read it if you want to.

 

[Lamb]

Thx Lamm
I'm not really asking the 'How' of it ..... How God does some things is admittedly above our paygrade. I'm more asking the 'When'. i.e. When does it become Him, at a certain time a prayer is said during the service, a la Rcatholic service? Or is it just always IS Him, before, during, after, as Rens seemed to be asking. I think.
(Oh, and I'm only asking if you can help us know the Lutheran teaching on this, I'm not questioning or challenging your own personal views, which everyone is free to have, of course, I suppose.) Just wondering what the Lutheran church teaches on these things, the degree of importance/necessity regarding salvation and walk, how they agree or differ from RC teaching and other churches, etc. That kind of thing. Thanks, GBU.

During the church service the portion for Holy Communion has the words of institution (verba) that the pastor says. There are some that say that the bread does not become the body until it is received but I was taught it was when the word was spoken. When does He leave (even though you did not ask)? Lutherans believe that God gave us Holy Communion to bring to us the benefits won at the cross. It gives us THAT forgiveness won for us and strengthens our faith. After communion has ended then God has done what He committed to do so to think that the body and blood remains is not clearly given to us by scripture. What is left over of bread and wine is given to shut ins but the pastor will still go through the words of institution in front of them so by faith they know that there is the real presence.

 

[atpollard]

Romans 12:18

 

[Josiah]

Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.


Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.



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



REAL PRESENCE: Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglicans and Methodists


Real Presence is:

1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing substracted, nothing modified, nothing "spun."

2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is. This means that we receive Christ - quite literally, physically. When my pastor gives me the host, his exact words are: "Josiah, this is the Body of Christ."


Real Presence is NOT..

1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the consecration as if we must take a "half real/half symbolic" interpretation of the text. It simply regards such as irrelevant. The point of Real Presence is the presence of CHRIST. It's not called, "The Denial of What Paul Wrote" because that's not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned and what Christ said: the body is, the blood is, CHRIST is present.

2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and FULLYLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. The HOW and the physics are left entirely alone.

3. Real Presence doesn't teach or deny any "change." The word "change" never appears in any Eucharistic text and thus Real Presence has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. "IS" means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, "This is a Toyota" simply and only means we this is a Toyota. When Peter said, "You ARE (same verb) the Christ, the Son of the living God" that simply means that Jesus is that.

Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens, exactly What happens - it doesn't matter. We believe because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration. That's good enough for the Orthodox and Lutherans, as well as many Anglicans and Methodist. And was for the RCC until 1551 when the RCC uniquely dogmatized a second view about the Eucharist.


Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist embrace Real Presense. The Catholic Church does too but it has been entirely buried under it's own unique new secondary dogma, that of Transubstantiation, so much so that many Catholics I've found don't even know what Real Presence is, only the new unique RCC second dogma.




.

Yes I didnt find in the scriptures Real Presence

I invite you to read the Scriptures. Jesus and Paul both said "is." Not "is not." Not "changed via the physical precise mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents." Not "is a metaphor for." Is. Is typically has to do with presence, reality, existence.

So I'm asking the questions ..... Is the communion wafer ALWAYS the body? (and blood? if it's that also ...I'm not sure of the teaching on that either)In other words, if it doesnt 'become' at some point, like I was told it does in the RCatholic churches, is it just accepted that it always IS, as in the original This IS my body, whether on the alter or still in storage or wherever it may be?
This is a very confusing issue for me, I admit.

As I stated before, the texts do not state the WHEN or the HOW. Lutherans thus do not state the WHEN or the HOW. Only the IS. The issues you raise apply to Catholics, with their new dogma of Transubstantiation but Lutherans do not dogmaticly teach that new dogma invented first in the 9th Century and made dogma uniquely, solely, only by the RC Denomination a few years AFTER Luther's death.


I hope that helps. If you have any questions, please ask. Lutherans MAY have an answer, they may not. After all, Lutherans do not claim that because a human may ask a question, ERGO it is mandated that Lutherans - and uniquely and only Lutherans - MUST have THE answer because God only speaks to Lutherans and only Lutherans listen (that's NOT a Lutheran claim).



Pax Christi


- Josiah



.

 

[user1234]

If you do want to know what the Catholic Church teaches about the holy Eucharist (rather than rely on off the cuff remarks by myself or your Catholic friend) then take somme time to read what is said in the USA Catechism for Adults. It is available online. It is free. And it is couched in USA english that people from the USA (presumably) understand better than my non-USA english. Here is the URL for the USA Catechism for Adults, http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/uscca/#241 . I previously gave an answer to your question. I started by saying "I do not know how God works his miracles". But a longer and more careful explanation may suit your needs better. The Catechism may help with that. Read it if you want to.

Thanks, but again, I wasn't really questioning the HOW of God's workings, but the WHEN of the transformation, from wafer to body of Christ.

I understand these are difficult questions for us all, and I'm not intending to be judgemental, critical, insulting in asking, and if I come across seeming that way, I apologize. Some of it does seem a little far out to me, personally, but what do I know, and sometimes I feel like the more I learn, the less I know, and that's in life in general, and sometimes in Christ/church too.

But we're called to grow in grace, and the knowledge of Jesus, and these things are all part of helping me learn and grow. I find it interesting how different meanings/traditions have sprung out concerning what some call the taking of communion.

So, if for now, to avoid any debate on it, we just say that it's some sort of miracle, and the wafer is transformed into the physical body and blood, or the spiritual, or both, let's just say it's so for now, my question was WHEN does this take place, whether in RC, Lutheran, or some other churches. Is it before or during the services, or just always is, (which I guess now that I think of, wouldn't make sense).

And I just realized that with all the 'convos' I've had with JW's at the door and elsewhere, I've never asked what their view is on this subject.
I guess I could just read things on the net, but Jesus also calls us to reason together, fellowship, pray, encourage each other in the faith, come into unity as saved believers in Him, and let brotherly love continue.

So how we see, understand, and partake of some of these traditions or religious things may be important in achieving that. Or maybe not so much, idk, that's what I'm hoping to learn.

 

[Josiah]

So you have advocated that I just needed to return and really study this OP and all of the questions that I keep asking of Lutherans will be answered.

Of course not, my friend. I never remotely stated any such thing.

You present the Lutheran position as the only true and Christ honoring view

I never even used words of "true" "honoring." I simply expressed the 3 major, current, western views. No one - to date - has disagreed with the listing of the 3 major modern western views, they've merely expressed why they affirm or deny one or more of them.

There is a fourth possibility

Perhaps you noted that I specifically stated that there are three major current western views. I never said there are/have been ONLY three views in all of Christiandom over 2000 years. For example, I never mentioned the EOC view (which I realize exists) because it's rarely known or expressed in the West. There are a lot more than 4 views, my good friend and brother - but the other views are rarely held or expressed in 21st Century WESTERN Christianity. I am aware of the HISTORIC view of SOME Calvinists, but as a Presbyterian minister at another website told me - virtually no Calvinists know or believe that historic view, their view is largely that of Zwingli, it is a symbolic, metaphoric view. I've discussed this with a half dozen or so strong Calvinists over the years and found that they either didn't know or didn't accept that old, historic Calvinists view. You may be the first that does, although you've not yet indicated that. But again, I doubt that a large percentage of the 2.2 billion Christians today (or even just those in Western Christianity) hold to an understanding of the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563, I'm SURE some do (I've just yet to meet even one). If you want to add that view (or if George wants to add the EOC view) to this thread, that's perfectly acceptable. But again, my brother, don't rebuke me for not listing EVERY possible veiw that has EVER been proposed by ANYONE in the 2000 year history of Christianity... especially when I specifically stated they were the MAJOR, CURRENT views in WESTERN Christianity.

his flesh which is in heaven

As I stated earlier, my personal "issue" with the metaphoric view is NOT the view per se (I DO admit metaphor exists - very, very rarely - in the Bible). My "issue" is typically the REASONS given for it. How such tends to destroy Chalcadon and Nicea, how they undermine the Two Natures of Christ. IMO, your comment there belongs in the still active thread by Lamm on the two INSEPARABLE natures of Christ.




Pax Christi



Josiah

 

[atpollard]

sorry, I didn't delete it fast enough.
(taking a time out)