Why can't the bread & wine be the body & blood of the Lord?

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Alcohol containing wine?
Now THERE'S a punch.
ALCOHOL ..... containing WINE! (hiccup)
NO ... I'm guessing you probably meant Wine, containing alcohol, but to be honest, I never really thought to ask. It's such a tiny little cup, only half-full, I don't even think about it being with or without. But since there are believers as young as 13 I think, and probably a good amount of recovered alkies, maybe we use unfermented fruit of the vine (grape juice)? idk, but does it really matter? If an alkie is that paranoid of going off the wagon, he could just take the 'bread' I guess, and a youngster would probably be with his parents, so it's at their discretion, I guess, but personally, I don't see the harm OR the benefit one way or another. It's a way to celebrate the memory of Jesus' sacrifice for us til He returns, whether grape juice or wine .... But I'll find out. :)
 

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

Thanks, MoreCoffee, for so stunningly proving every thing I've posted on this!




Transubstantiation: Besides the Real Presence which faith accepts and delights in, there is the doctrine of transubstantiation


So now do you agree with me? Transubstantiation is not just 6 crazy fun syllables some Catholics chant but has no meaning.... it's the DOCTRINE of the singular RC Denomination.


I can understand your desire to dodge it, to run from it, to downplay it as just 6 syllables meaning and teaching nothing..... I can understand why you'd try to support Real Presence and pretend these 6 syllables don't exist, but friend, you just proved my point.




....become ....transubstantiation..... change...... changed.......


Yup, the word Jesus and Paul actually used.... the basis of Real Presence...... the reason why for 1500 years it was accepted that Christ IS present..... that word has been deleted (or maybe just smothered to death). And with that, Real Presence is destroyed (or at least made textually baseless). New words have been substituted for the deletion of "is". Just as Zwingli did.




In other words, whatever the senses perceive-even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses- is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance. This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing. Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.



AMAZING, the very pressed way the RCC undermines the reality, destroys the word "is". The philosophical dancing, the running away, the sophistry, the twisting.... anything to avoid the word "is".... anything to indicate that Jesus and Paul spoke/penned poorly..... anything to make Real Presence seem, well, not too smart.

And note the very, very precise word "accident" Lock, stock and barrel from the pagan Aristotle and his weird (and wrong) philosphy of accidents. It's NOT..... really, IS is the wrong word (Jesus and Paul should have known better!).... it's only an APPEARANCE, SEEMING deceptively..... not really real in any full, usual sense. Is doesn't mean is. (There goes Real Presence..... destroyed)





accidents... accidents ... accidents.... accidents...... accidents.....


More sophistry.... more dancing.... more denial of the word "is"....

More dogmatization of a pagan philosphy of Aristotle..... more running from reality..... more insistence that "is" doesn't man is.

Enormous attempts to destroy Real Presence (which it did NOT officially reject at Trent, just destroyed any reason to accept).





doctrine of transubstantiation .... accidents... change..... change..... accident......


No "is." ANYTHING (however weird, wrong, pagan) to deny the word "is" and to substitute entirely different words: pagan ones, wrong ones - to deny reality (in any full, usual sense)

DOCTRINE. Not "just 6 syllables"




accidents... accidents ... accidents ... accidents ... accidents ....


Incredible lengths of sophistry to deny the "IS"

ANYTHING to entirely avoid and evade what the Eucharistic texts say (I don't think the author of this knows what Jesus said or Paul penned, and he SURE avoids quoting them!). Every attempt...... over and over and over and over and over .... to replace what Jesus and Paul said with what Aristotle speculated and what Alchemy tried to persue. And of course, destroy any textual basis for Real Presence and affirm Zwingli's position that "is" doesn't mean "is" here.




Thanks, MoreCoffee, for so stunningly proving every thing I've posted on this!




- Josiah



.
 
Last edited:

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Now THERE'S a punch.
ALCOHOL ..... containing WINE! (hiccup)
NO ... I'm guessing you probably meant Wine, containing alcohol, but to be honest, I never really thought to ask. It's such a tiny little cup, only half-full, I don't even think about it being with or without. But since there are believers as young as 13 I think, and probably a good amount of recovered alkies, maybe we use unfermented fruit of the vine (grape juice)? idk, but does it really matter? If an alkie is that paranoid of going off the wagon, he could just take the 'bread' I guess, and a youngster would probably be with his parents, so it's at their discretion, I guess, but personally, I don't see the harm OR the benefit one way or another. It's a way to celebrate the memory of Jesus' sacrifice for us til He returns, whether grape juice or wine .... But I'll find out. :)

Just a side note - for recovering persons, sometimes it's helpful to explain that receiving the wine is for a different purpose, and to explain the significance to them (whatever your denom's understanding might be). But give them a "head's up" :) I've seen more than one get caught off guard
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Hi Josiah ...
Thanks for at least acknowleding my post, but your answer didnt really address my questions, specifically which were this ---> (regarding how we served communion Friday)

--->Is anyone going to challenge that? Somehow say we did it wrong? That it doesn't count somehow? Is lacking in some way?<---

Now, I know the positions presented by the 16th century guys you mentioned, and how ppl argue over them....
And I see what you say regarding what you read in scripture, and what your interpretation of that is, and how ppl are free to agree with you or not on those positions .....
But my questions are rather simple yes or no, does Josiah or anyone here want to say what we did was wrong?

Not 'Here's what the bible says Paul says Jesus says about this or that now it's up to ME to decide' ..... (I already believe it was fine, otherwise I wouldnt have participated.)

I just want to know if anyone HERE would say 'Yes it's fine', or, 'No it isn't'.
Because if no one is willing to say it was wrong, then I'd have to assume they think it's fine and perfectly acceptable.
And if that's the case, then how is their own view of their own communion partaking any MORE right, proper, or necessary? Do you see what I mean? GBU and thx J.
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Just a side note - for recovering persons, sometimes it's helpful to explain that receiving the wine is for a different purpose, and to explain the significance to them (whatever your denom's understanding might be). But give them a "head's up" :) I've seen more than one get caught off guard
Yes, that makes sense, and the more I think of it, and considering the size, (there were well over a thousand ppl there) , (and the reason for partaking is quite clearly given) , I'm pretty confident it's non-alcoholic.

There's a well-attended 'recovery-type' weekly meeting there, *UPDATE FOR CLARITY* and I'm certain many many former drug and alcohol users, .... also in attendance, *MEANING in CHURCH attendance, not the RECOVERY MEETING (myself included), *MEANING MYSELF in CHURCH ... I DONT ATTEND THE WEEKLY RECOVERY MEETINGS* , so it's a safe bet.
(not that there's anything wrong about it, I just wanted to be clear)
(Oops, not to mention gambling, sorry, I guess that's included,) But I just never really thought about it, and I guess I usually just say 'wine' in a general sense when talking about communion.
Thanks, ImaginaryDay2 . God bless. :)
 
Last edited:

ImaginaryDay2

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
3,967
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
--->Is anyone going to challenge that? Somehow say we did it wrong? That it doesn't count somehow? Is lacking in some way?<---

But my questions are rather simple yes or no, does Josiah or anyone here want to say what we did was wrong?

I just want to know if anyone HERE would say 'Yes it's fine', or, 'No it isn't'.
Because if no one is willing to say it was wrong, then I'd have to assume they think it's fine and perfectly acceptable.
And if that's the case, then how is their own view of their own communion partaking any MORE right, proper, or necessary? Do you see what I mean?

I know this was directed at Josiah, but...

I don't know that anyone is going to say what your congregation did was wrong. Your congregation did what is in their understanding to do in obedience to scripture. Just as I did for years and years and years. It has only been within the last two years or so that I have come to study, understand, and accept the fact that the body and blood of Christ are present and real, just as much as bread and wine in communion. I don't accept that there is some 'change' (Transubstantiation) where bread isn't bread and wine isn't wine. Things that make me go "hmmm..." :)
Christ also said "do this in remembrance of me". And this is equally as important and valid, and needs to be observed. We should remember and be grateful for the ultimate price He paid for our freedom. Equally, we need to come with the right heart and spirit, examining ourselves prior to taking communion. I would not, and sometimes do not, if I think that to do so would not be genuine.
Which brings me to another point. If I were in a church where communion were only a memorial observance - not believing that the body and blood of Christ was in any way present - I would abstain. I would do so out of conscience, and out of respect for that assembly as my understanding is different from theirs. Equally, if I were to attend Catholic Mass, I would not try to 'force' my way (as I would be prevented, anyway) by deception to the altar to receive communion for the same reasons.

I hope you will accept my humble input. :)
 

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
Hi Josiah ... Thanks for acknowleding my post, but your answer didnt really address my questions, specifically which were this ---> (regarding how we served communion Friday)


I don't think it matters (much) how anything is served. Nor is this thread about customs in serving Communion. It's about what IS Communion and what IS being given by God in Communion.




Is anyone going to challenge that? Somehow say we did it wrong? That it doesn't count somehow? Is lacking in some way?


I've never opinioned that ANY custom in serving or receiving Communion is specifically wrong. For example, I've not opinioned as to whether one MUST serve leavened or unleavened bread .... grape juice or wine..... I've never chosen to share an opinion about that, partly because I don't recall ever seeing a thread about that where I could share an opinion .... and because I don't think it matters much. Different parishes and denominations have their customs about serving and generally, I have no problems with them.

We are told we are to recognize the Body so I think that matters, but whether one gets 1/10th of an ounce of grape juice from a tiny plastic cup or 5 ounces of premium Napa Valley wine from a zillion dollar chalice... well..... I'm not sure that really matters a whole lot. The Bible seems silent about that. It's not silent, however, on what we are receiving in that plastic cup or that golden chalice.


Back to the issue at hand....


Thank you!



- Josiah




.
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
*Sorry, I tried editting, but I cant figure out how to get the 'quote' boxes to work*

ImaginaryDay2 said:
I know this was directed at Josiah, but...

I don't know that anyone is going to say what your congregation did was wrong. Your congregation did what is in their understanding to do in obedience to scripture.[/QUOTE]

Josiah said:
I've never opinioned that ANY custom in serving or receiving Communion is specifically wrong.[/QUOTE]

This was my point.
What IS communion.
If no one can say THIS is wrong, or THAT is wrong, then who can say what IS right?

Is what the RomanCatholics say about it right?
If so, we better all be eating the Literal body and blood of Christ and take the RC communion wafer as much as possible.
If it's NOT right, then millions are being deceived .... To what degree of harm, if any, is hard to say. (just for example).

In other words, many congregations teach and do what is right to them as they see fit from scriptures or whatever translation of God's Word they believe they're reading.

Even JW's, Mormon's, etc. So where do we draw the line at being able to say what's right or wrong, just what IS communion. And is anyone willing to say they're so sure what it IS, that other teaching that adds to, detracts from, or somehow counteracts that, is wrong, or is it all just relative?

Like what IS right for me, may not be what IS right for another, or what IS right for yet another, but it doesn't really matter, as long as you believe YOU are right is all that matters? Thx and God bless.
 

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
Like what IS right for me, may not be what IS right for another, or what IS right for yet another, but it doesn't really matter, as long as you believe YOU are right is all that matters? Thx and God bless.


Sorry, I don't believe that truth is personal, simply whatever some individual feels that it is to him/her..... 7 billion truths cuz there's 7 billion people.

But I understand, if one holds that truth is irrelevant, personal, just a matter of individual feeling at the time.... impossible to discuss... then a thread like this is by definition irrelevant, impossible to participate in. But that's not my position.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
[MENTION=333]Snerfle[/MENTION]

*Sorry, I tried editting, but I cant figure out how to get the 'quote' boxes to work*
FYI: You have [/[/COLOR]QUOTE] where you need [/COLOR][/QUOTE].
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sorry, I don't believe that truth is personal, simply whatever some individual feels that it is to him/her..... 7 billion truths cuz there's 7 billion people.

But I understand, if one holds that truth is irrelevant, personal, just a matter of individual feeling at the time.... impossible to discuss... then a thread like this is by definition irrelevant, impossible to participate in. But that's not my position.
So then that's why I keep asking the question. Ppl keep saying truth regarding this topic is not relevant/personal, but then won't say THIS way is right, but THAT way is wrong, but that whatever an individual, congregation, or denomination teaches/practices is just fine.
How can it be both?

We're not talking about ppl who hold that truth is irrelevant, that is, meaningless, ... quite the contrary.
We're talking about ppl who think it very important, until asked to take a stand that one thing is right and another is wrong, then they back off any judgement, and don't want to say for certain. And it goes back to This IS communion Definitely (in my opinion maybe).
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@Snerfle


FYI: You have [/[/COLOR]QUOTE] where you need [/COLOR]
.[/QUOTE]
That's weird. In post #68???
I see the open quote with the persons name at the beginning and the close quote at the end. Same with the second quote. .... The word 'color' isnt even there. Very strange.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Since it is Easter Weekend and I grow weary of the banter on transunstantiation and mysteries and there is much insistence on getting back to the topic. I would like to contribute, not to the argument on Catholic vs Lutheran doctrine, but to the original question ... the title of this topic:

Why can't the bread & wine be the body & blood of the Lord?

I offer the following (in honor of the season):

John 19:16-37 [NIV]
Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). There they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.
Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: jesus of nazareth, the king of the jews. Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.”
Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.
“Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.”
This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled that said,
“They divided my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.”
So this is what the soldiers did.
Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”


This is the body and blood that was broken for my sin, for the new covenant. This is the body and blood that has the power to effect a miraculous transformation ... in those who believe. This is the body and blood that was present in the upper room at the last supper, holding the cup and breaking the bread to offer it. This is the body and blood that commanded us to REMEMBER HIM! To remember every time we ate the bread and drank the wine.

This is why the power is not in the cracker and the juice. No one was ever saved by a cracker and some juice. It was the death of the Christ, Son of the Living God, that brings salvation to the world. "Do this in remembrance of Me." The emphasis is not on THIS, the emphasis is on ME (Jesus Christ).

I have said my peace. I will say no more.
God bless all.
I go to celebrate HIS Resurection in the morning, and to remember HIM.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,206
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
This is true. But at no point does it cease to be bread and wine. I've not tasted human flesh, so I've nothing to compare it to. But I've (inadvertently) pricked my finger and stuck it in my mouth to stop it hurting. Blood has a rather distinctive taste. So does communion wine. If the 'accidents' were to become (only) the blood and body of Christ, He would be more than able to make them so. But He has chosen to maintain the property of bread and wine, while His body and blood also equally present
I take Christ at His word that His body and blood are present, just as much as the bread and wine.

For me the consecrated bread and wine is the body and blood of Jesus.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
This is why the power is not in the cracker and the juice. No one was ever saved by a cracker and some juice. It was the death of the Christ, Son of the Living God, that brings salvation to the world. "Do this in remembrance of Me." The emphasis is not on THIS, the emphasis is on ME (Jesus Christ).

This is my body.

You say no one is ever saved by a cracker. Well, Jesus didn't hand out crackers so there is one flaw ;) Let's change that to bread. Can bread save us? No. Bread alone cannot save us. Can the Lord's body save us? The one that is our Savior? The one that is the new covenant? Especially since it's given for the forgiveness of sins. Yes, that body can save us.

Is that body in the bread? Jesus says it is but you deny it. You stated that communion is not given to us for God to strengthen us with His body but instead only to remember Him. We do remember Him but we also remember His words that say This is my body. It isn't stated only once in scriptures either and that's often something to consider.

In scriptures we see that there are other instances where God attaches a promise to earthly elements. In 2 Kings 5 we see how God told Naaman the leper to dip himself in the Jordan river. God attached a promise there of what He would do. Not because Naaman dipped but because God said He would cleanse Naaman through the waters of the Jordan...not just any river. This is also how we see God attaching a promise of cleansing our sins in baptism. He gives us his word that it will happen and it's not a cleansing apart from Christ's death on the cross but connected to it. Just like communion...it is not separated from the cross but gives us the benefits of it through His precious body and blood.

The title is a great one for this thread "Why can't the bread and wine be the body and blood of the Lord?" I haven't seen any responses that give reason of why it can't. Of course it can since God can do anything :) And He has.
 

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
Since it is Easter Weekend and I grow weary of the banter on transunstantiation and mysteries and there is much insistence on getting back to the topic. I would like to contribute, not to the argument on Catholic vs Lutheran doctrine, but to the original question ... the title of this topic:

Why can't the bread & wine be the body & blood of the Lord?

I offer the following (in honor of the season):

John 19:16-37 [NIV]
Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). There they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.
Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: jesus of nazareth, the king of the jews. Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.”
Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.
“Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.”
This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled that said,
“They divided my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.”
So this is what the soldiers did.
Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”


This is the body and blood that was broken for my sin, for the new covenant. This is the body and blood that has the power to effect a miraculous transformation ... in those who believe. This is the body and blood that was present in the upper room at the last supper, holding the cup and breaking the bread to offer it. This is the body and blood that commanded us to REMEMBER HIM! To remember every time we ate the bread and drank the wine.

This is why the power is not in the cracker and the juice. No one was ever saved by a cracker and some juice. It was the death of the Christ, Son of the Living God, that brings salvation to the world. "Do this in remembrance of Me." The emphasis is not on THIS, the emphasis is on ME (Jesus Christ).

I have said my peace. I will say no more.
God bless all.
I go to celebrate HIS Resurection in the morning, and to remember HIM.


The bread and wine have no power..... the Body and Blood does..... In accepting fully what Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned means accepting that while bread and wine "IS" so also Body and Blood "IS". Your rebuke applies to Zwingians and some modern "Evangelicals" who deny the Body and Blood but of course not to Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics as well as some Anglicans and Methodists who accept what Jesus said and accept the reality of Body and Blood. Yup... the "power" (as you oddly put it) flows from Christ, not the bread and wine.


While we are told to do this remembering Him, we are also told to discern His Body in Communion (or judgement will come to us). It's not either/or. It's both/and.
 

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
So then that's why I keep asking the question. Ppl keep saying truth regarding this topic is not relevant/personal, but then won't say THIS way is right, but THAT way is wrong,

AGAIN, friend, this thread is not about local customs of giving and receiving Communion. AGAIN, I don't have an opinion (or concern) about whether one is given and thus receives one-tenth of an ounce of bad grape juice in a cheap non-biodegradable plastic cup or 6 ounces of fine California wine in a million dollar chalice. AGAIN, I think no one is telling you boldly what customs are permissible and which aren't becAuse 1) This thread is not about that, 2) I doubt anyone here has any strong opinions about that.


Several here (and in other threads) HAVE shared the 3 common views of that Communion IS and what God gives in it. Some have defended their positions (and in one case, defended the position of others rather than his own denomination). Perhaps you want more "YOU ARE WRONG!!!" comments but I think mostly this has been a discussion simply of the views - and in some cases, why that position is held.




We're talking about ppl who think it very important, until asked to take a stand that one thing is right and another is wrong, then they back off any judgement, and don't want to say for certain. And it goes back to This IS communion Definitely (in my opinion maybe).


Check here: http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical


And yes, I think some DO give reasons why they accept their view.




.
 

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
This is my body.

You say no one is ever saved by a cracker. Well, Jesus didn't hand out crackers so there is one flaw ;) Let's change that to bread. Can bread save us? No. Bread alone cannot save us. Can the Lord's body save us? The one that is our Savior? The one that is the new covenant? Especially since it's given for the forgiveness of sins. Yes, that body can save us.

Is that body in the bread? Jesus says it is but you deny it. You stated that communion is not given to us for God to strengthen us with His body but instead only to remember Him. We do remember Him but we also remember His words that say This is my body. It isn't stated only once in scriptures either and that's often something to consider.

In scriptures we see that there are other instances where God attaches a promise to earthly elements. In 2 Kings 5 we see how God told Naaman the leper to dip himself in the Jordan river. God attached a promise there of what He would do. Not because Naaman dipped but because God said He would cleanse Naaman through the waters of the Jordan...not just any river. This is also how we see God attaching a promise of cleansing our sins in baptism. He gives us his word that it will happen and it's not a cleansing apart from Christ's death on the cross but connected to it. Just like communion...it is not separated from the cross but gives us the benefits of it through His precious body and blood.

The title is a great one for this thread "Why can't the bread and wine be the body and blood of the Lord?" I haven't seen any responses that give reason of why it can't. Of course it can since God can do anything :) And He has.


I agree. But it seems to me that if there is a dogmatic denial that "is" means is..... a dogmatic denial that what comes after the Consecration necessarily is real and present (in any usual sense), then there's no reason to accept that any of it actually is...... no reason to accept that body or blood or bread or wine or forgiveness are real at all. "Is" has to mean "is" if one is going to insist that something "is."


In the 16th Century, two Christian groups dogmatically declared for the first time in Christian history that in the Communion texts, "is" doesn't mean is - in order to deny what follows the "is" . The RC Denomination declared that in lieu of "is" the replacement must be: "Changed from one thing into something entirely different via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation." Why? In order to deny two things that come after the "is" - the bread and wine, it needed to get rid of that, that "IS" (insisting such is only an Aristotelian ACCIDENT and not really real in any usual, common sense). The other group was lead by Zwingli who, following the lead of the RCC, also insisted that "is" in the Communion texts doesn't mean is in order to deny what comes after the "is." They insisted that "is" be replaced with "symbolizes, represents" because
Zwingli wanted to get rid of the Body and Blood (just symbols). Both needed to get rid of something following the "IS" and so both just deleted the "is" and replaced it: either with "CHANGE via an alchemic transubstantiation" or "SYMBOLIZES" - both then could essentially deny some things following that pesty "is": the RCC essentially denying the bread and wine, Zwinglian "Evangelicals" the Body and Blood. In both cases, they can't point to "is" since both dogmatically deny that.
 

TurtleHare

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2015
Messages
1,057
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
For me the consecrated bread and wine is the body and blood of Jesus.

I remember tests being done on Catholics to determine what happens when the Eucharist is received and then digested and there was no DNA available to show it was Jesus' body or evidence except that is was still bread. I, being Lutheran, believe in the real presence and don't know what to make of those test results and they should knock my faith down more but it doesn't!
 
Top Bottom