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

[Rens]

I dont trump Jesus' words, that's a riot! :=D: The false accusations and strawmen arguements have gotten moronic.
I dont parrot any Zwingli, but some ppl seem to need parrot the legalism of their denomination.
I am not a member of any church denomination, unlike some that evidently have to pass a test to join the club.
As a saved believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I'm a member of the church that Jesus founded. I've been assuming most ppl here are too. The one that IS and the one against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. THAT church.

But ..... IS IS GEEEE WHIZ, If ppl want to believe that a little machine-stamped wafer IS the body of Jesus, they're quite free to do so.
I believe many believers throughout the time of the church, have believed that the bread and wine were and are symbolic, and understand that's what Jesus meant when He said, 'This is My body which is given for you: this do in REMEMBRANCE of Me.'
Likewise the cup after supper, saying, 'This CUP is the NEW TESTAMENT in My blood, which is shed for you.'

IS Jesus a literal door?
IS Jesus a literal vine?
IS you a literal sheep?
If ppl want to believe all that, they IS free to believe all that.
Meanwhile, I will enjoy living in and sharing the New Covenant.

[FONT=&]22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.[/FONT]
~Hebrews7:22-28~

and all the sheep say:
A me e e e e e en

 

[Pedrito]

Apologies if this has been addressed before, and Pedrito missed it.

Exactly how and when do bread and wine, or bread or wine individually, become the body and blood of Jesus respectively?

1. What is the mechanism?

2. What must be done?

3. Where must it or may it be done?

4. When must it or may it be done?

5. Who has the power to effect that change, or the authority to perform some sort of ritual that makes it happen?


Are they not sensible questions?


Precise answers are requested. Not runarounds.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Apologies if this has been addressed before, and Pedrito missed it.

Some of it has been discussed in the thread. Pedrito missed it.

Exactly how and when do bread and wine, or bread or wine individually, become the body and blood of Jesus respectively?

The known facts are there:

• Jesus said "This is my body" as he have the broken bread to the disciples at the last supper.
• Jesus said "This is my blood of the new covenant shed for many for the forgiveness of sins" as the chalice was passed from himself to his disciples at the last supper.

1. What is the mechanism?

No mechanism is explained in holy scripture. In John chapter six Jesus spoke these words:

• I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.
• The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.
• I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
• I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
• Stop grumbling among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
• I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.

2. What must be done?

One is called to do what Jesus commands.

3. Where must it or may it be done?

Wherever you hear the call if the opportunity to obey is there.

4. When must it or may it be done?

When the call is heard and the opportunity to obey is present.

5. Who has the power to effect that change, or the authority to perform some sort of ritual that makes it happen?

God has the power to do what is needed for those who seek to obey him when he calls.

Are they not sensible questions?

Are the answers sufficient for you?

Precise answers are requested. Not runarounds.

The answers are in the holy scriptures for anybody who desires to find them.

 

[user1234]

and all the sheep say:
A me e e e e e en

A me e e e e e en :wave: GOD BLESS YOU !!! :cow:

 

[Lamb]

I dont trump Jesus' words, that's a riot! :=D: The false accusations and strawmen arguements have gotten moronic.
I dont parrot any Zwingli, but some ppl seem to need parrot the legalism of their denomination.
I am not a member of any church denomination, unlike some that evidently have to pass a test to join the club.
As a saved believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I'm a member of the church that Jesus founded. I've been assuming most ppl here are too. The one that IS and the one against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. THAT church.

But ..... IS IS GEEEE WHIZ, If ppl want to believe that a little machine-stamped wafer IS the body of Jesus, they're quite free to do so.
I believe many believers throughout the time of the church, have believed that the bread and wine were and are symbolic, and understand that's what Jesus meant when He said, 'This is My body which is given for you: this do in REMEMBRANCE of Me.'
Likewise the cup after supper, saying, 'This CUP is the NEW TESTAMENT in My blood, which is shed for you.'

IS Jesus a literal door?
IS Jesus a literal vine?
IS you a literal sheep?
If ppl want to believe all that, they IS free to believe all that.
Meanwhile, I will enjoy living in and sharing the New Covenant.

[FONT=&]22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.[/FONT]
~Hebrews7:22-28~

Was the Passover symbolic? I didn't find your answer to that.

Could the ark really have held all the animals? Yes.

Could a virgin really get pregnant without having sex? Yes.

Could Jesus turn water into wine? Yes.

Could the bread and wine be the true body and blood? Yes.


Why do you believe in so many miracles in scripture and deny others?

 

[user1234]

Apologies if this has been addressed before, and Pedrito missed it.

Exactly how and when do bread and wine, or bread or wine individually, become the body and blood of Jesus respectively?

1. What is the mechanism?

2. What must be done?

3. Where must it or may it be done?

4. When must it or may it be done?

5. Who has the power to effect that change, or the authority to perform some sort of ritual that makes it happen?


Are they not sensible questions?


Precise answers are requested. Not runarounds.

Yes, I tried along these lines before, at one point, being largely ignored.
Now I see you get a reprint of a portion of John out of context, and the rest is one liners that amount to not much of any explanation, although the time spent at an answer is appreciated.
It looks like it's just going to be either, 'Here's a verse, just read it, or here's my religion, just obey it, or we dont know it's a mystery, just believe it'.

(Just don't ask for an explanation, or you may be accused of being smarter than God and all the other obeying parishioners that went before,
And dont offer your opinion or conclusions you arrive at from scripture, or you may be accused of being a heretic.)

I have an answer for the OP.
BUT keep in mind, the entrapping nature of the Question, 'WHY CAN'T the bread and wine be the body and blood?' .....
If your answer begins with , 'THEY CAN'T BECAUSE ....' , You may be accused of being smarter than God, because all things are POSSIBLE, right?
So it's often a losing proposition when religious ppl ask questions.
I'm not questioning the motive in this particular case, but many times it's not really a search for an answer, but a way to trap ppl into conceding to the religionists already-set doctrinal opinion.
So, the answer to the OP , IMO , is ... I guess they CAN, since they say anything's possible, and in a figurative sense, the bread and wine are, but in a literal sense, they're not.

 

[Lamb]

Apologies if this has been addressed before, and Pedrito missed it.

Exactly how and when do bread and wine, or bread or wine individually, become the body and blood of Jesus respectively?

1. What is the mechanism?

2. What must be done?

3. Where must it or may it be done?

4. When must it or may it be done?

5. Who has the power to effect that change, or the authority to perform some sort of ritual that makes it happen?


Are they not sensible questions?


Precise answers are requested. Not runarounds.

MoreCoffee has given a great response. Your questions are all law-based and Holy Communion is Gospel based...that it is, it isn't focused on US in order for it to be true. God is the one who makes it true. His words are This is my body. The who,what,when,where,why,how questions are all Greek thinking questions which the Jews weren't prone to do.

God doesn't always answer all the nitty gritty questions. He doesn't have to. If you look through scriptures at the majority of the faithful, they listened to God and didn't have to ask the who,what,when,where,why,how questions that you're asking because those were not in their culture as being God's people. Hebrew thinking was their style.

So looking at your questions you are thinking at it as something we MUST do instead of something God is giving to us.

Who? God
When? God
What? God
Where? God
Why? God
How? God

Those are the answers to your questions. Communion is for us because...God. That's the simplest way to look at it that doesn't get into the thinking that scripture doesn't provide answers to, because it doesn't have to be answered for the faithful to receive.

 

[user1234]

Was the Passover symbolic? I didn't find your answer to that.

Could the ark really have held all the animals? Yes.

Could a virgin really get pregnant without having sex? Yes.

Could Jesus turn water into wine? Yes.

Could the bread and wine be the true body and blood? Yes.


Why do you believe in so many miracles in scripture and deny others?

Hi Lämmchen
I don't deny ANY miracles in scripture, please correct that accusation.
As far as the PASSOVER, there a number of meanings to it, so I'll need you to be more specific when you ask, 'Was THE passover symbolic?'

Are you referring to the avoidance of the death of the first-borns?
The first passover supper? The traditional annual passover meal?
The last supper/passover with Jesus and the disciples?
Which 'The Passover' are you asking about?

(They all have a degree of symbolism, IMO)

 

[Rens]

Was the Passover symbolic? I didn't find your answer to that.

Could the ark really have held all the animals? Yes.

Could a virgin really get pregnant without having sex? Yes.

Could Jesus turn water into wine? Yes.

Could the bread and wine be the true body and blood? Yes.


Why do you believe in so many miracles in scripture and deny others?

Maybe he doesn't have enough faith so he denies some.
We are are, is are are, His body.
So the bread is the Body of believers. We eat ourselves. Is is is? Why do you deny it? My what an unbelief. Oh well.

 

[Lamb]

Jesus is now with us all through the Holy Spirit, that's why He went to the Father. On earth He was not omnipresent. He had one body. He had to walk to another town to go meet the people there. And then before His death and resurrection He said: take, eat, this is My body, while He sat next to them and His body hadn't even been killed then.

Jesus is God.

Think of this. Jesus was in Mary's womb and He was God there. Yet, He was also everywhere else since...He is God. Can God give us His body and blood while standing before us? How could that be an impossibility with God? He created the world from nothing.

 

[Lamb]

Hi Lämmchen
I don't deny ANY miracles in scripture, please correct that accusation.
As far as the PASSOVER, there a number of meanings to it, so I'll need you to be more specific when you ask, 'Was THE passover symbolic?'

Are you referring to the avoidance of the death of the first-borns?
The first passover supper? The traditional annual passover meal?
The last supper/passover with Jesus and the disciples?
Which 'The Passover' are you asking about?

(They all have a degree of symbolism, IMO)

You do deny the Real Presence.

I was referring to the first Passover. Was it real? Or was it symbolic only?

 

[Lamb]

Maybe he doesn't have enough faith so he denies some.
We are are, is are are, His body.
So the bread is the Body of believers. We eat ourselves. Is is is? Why do you deny it? My what an unbelief. Oh well.

Nowhere does it say the bread is the body of believers. It is the body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:27 "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."


That verse talks about the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[user1234]

Maybe he doesn't have enough faith so he denies some.
We are are, is are are, His body.
So the bread is the Body of believers. We eat ourselves. Is is is? Why do you deny it? My what an unbelief. Oh well.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTT????????!!!!!!!!! :eek2:
ARE YOU KIDDING ME, SAYING I DONT HAVE ENOUGH FAITH SO I DENY MIRACLES???!!! :yikes::yikes::yikes: ??????!!!!!!

WHEN THE .... Have I EVER denied ANY miracles in the bible??????!!!!!!! :aargh4:

Just because some religious ppl want to label something a miracle, doesn't mean it is.

And just because some religious ppl want to falsely accuse me of denying miracles in the bible doesnt make it true. Please don't believe them, Rens .

Just because I disagree with some religionists opinions or their denominations rules doesn't make me a denyer of miracles or God's Word.

Come on, Rens , you know me better than that, or you should, by now.
OY !!! :banghead: :faint:

As far as the rest of your post, Of COURSE I know we eat ourselves! That part is just common sense! I love you so much I could eat you all up .....it's not just a figure of speech, it's literal! :kids: :=D: :;;D:

 

[Josiah]

@Snefle; and others......




On Earth, in the flesh, with His mouth promised: "I am with you always."

The word "I" here refers to JESUS - who is both God and a flesh and blood human being, both.
The verb is "AM" The tense is that's currently true and this truth continues indefinitely into the future.
The "YOU" is plural; most understand this as applying to all Christians (or at least several persons in various locales even now).

Do you believe Him?????????? Or was He being deceptive at best or just lying or maybe just sharing a mushy, sentimental emotion signifiying nothing, not really true?


I have a Ph.D. in physics and I don't understand the physcis of His promise AT ALL. Not a bit, not at all. How can this flesh and blood man (weighing maybe 160 pounds or so) how can He BE everywhere, always.... with me, with Lamm, with MoreCoffee, with Snefle... right now? And how is it I can't take a nice photo of Him with my new phone? I can't understand how this can be...... physics can't explain how this can be..... I can't answer ANY questions people may be able to ask about any of this. Yet Jesus promised that it is true! It's His last promise while still on Earth! People references it very often!

Since physics can't explain it, some in this thread have argued it cannot be true. Jesus (as the God/Man) CANNOT do it according to THEIR 'understanding' of physics. God can only do what THEY can understand and explain via physics. So, therefore, the verb "am" here means "am NOT." By the same principle, "Jesus is risen" must be rejected as not really true. And of course, what happens to "God is Triune" and "Jesus is God?" Since "is" only means "is" when we can prove it by one's understanding of physics, otherwise "is" means "is NOT actually."



That is what I (and most Christians now; all before 1500) disagree with. THAT is the discussion of this thread (the one MoreCoffee sought us to discuss). Some insist that when the Bible says "is" the 'default' and 'natural' spin is that is means IS NOT, NOT SO, NOT ACTUALLY unless and until either 1) It can be shown via our current human understandings of physics that this is possible/likely, 2) We can answer all questions asked about it in a scientifically supported way, 3) we ignore the verb and the words in the Bible and consider instead what each feels the Holy Spirit whispered to them, in stead of and in place of what Jesus actually said or the Holy Spirit inspired to be penned in His Scriptures to us. THIS is what I (and most Christians now; all before 1500) disagree with.

That some Christians can't explain via their own understanding of physics how Jesus can be present in Communion and therefore He can't be is the issue here: it's the principle, the reason for the rejection that is very disconcerning... and IMO is the "Pandora' Box" that is destroying so much of Christianity. Why believe the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus or the incarnation or the resurrection? We can't and shouldn't if we apply the same principle being promoted here. That less than 1% of the time "is" refers to a metaphor does NOT imply the principle some are promoting here: that the default meaning of "is" is "is NOT actually, NOT really so". "Is" only means "is" if self concludes that the understanding of physics by self concludes it's possible, only if self can answer all questions raised by people via physics concerning it. "It ain't true unless physics says it is" is a dangerous (but I admit popular) principle (I say that as a physicist).



Here's the historic Christian position: Jesus can be believed. God's written words can be believed. If God says He can do something, that He does do something...... He can (indeed, that it's absurd to tell God He CANNOT do something cuz the understanding of physics by a person says it cannot be done). When the Bible says "is", at least 99% of the time it means is. Yes.... less than 1% of the time, it refers to a metaphor but that's the very rare exception not the default position; the reality that very rarely it refers to a metaphor does NOT mean we must assume that "is" actually means "is NOT, NOT the case, NOT actually true" unless our physics proves otherwise. Historically, Christians have fully, completely accepted that the meaning of is is is when we read "Jesus is the Savior" "Jesus is God" "Jesus is man" "Jesus is the Redeemer" "Jesus is with us always" "Jesus is risen." The tradition is not "IS = is not, not really true, not actually the case" unless physics can prove it and I can answer all questions concerning it. No! For 1500 years, Christians spoke of MYSTERY. In fact, theology used to be called "the Mysteries." The Bible calls on us to be "stewards of the mysteries of God." The things we DON'T understand, CAN'T explain, CAN'T wrap our brains around, DOESN'T "fit" with our current human understanding of physics. The Bible does not call on us to be "destroyers of the mysteries of God" "deniers of God". Traditionally, Christians viewed God as smarter than we, likely knowing more about the things of God than man or even one's current understanding of physics.




Thank you.



- Josiah




.

 

[user1234]

You do deny the Real Presence.

I was referring to the first Passover. Was it real? Or was it symbolic only?

I'm getting really tired of these, ahem, accusations. You accused me of denying miracles in the bible. That's ahem, false. I'll ask you again to please retract it.

Deny the Real Presence? What does that even mean?
I don't deny the presence of God, if that's also what you're accusing.
He's with us now.
That's a far cry from a religious denominations claim that Jesus is in a machine-stamped wafer, or thousands of them. That isn't a denial of God's miracles in the bible.
That's a disagreement over a religious doctrine.

And I'll still need you to be more specific regarding passover.
Just adding the word 'first' doesn't clarify your meaning.
The first time death passed over the households of the first-borns?
The first passover lamb? Or meal? Can you be more specific?
Chapter and verse?
And even on the question itself .... What do you mean real or symbolic?
As if it's either or? Of course they're all real, and there's symbolism in them all.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.

They really slaughtered lambs, yes, that was real.
It was symbolic of THE LAMB, Jesus Christ, who would be slain for the sins of the world.

They really put the blood on the doorposts, yes, that was real.
And it was symbolic of of Jesus' shed blood on the cross.

And death really passed over those homes.
And that was symbolic of death passing over us,
because God sees us covered by the blood of Christ .....
BY FAITH, not by us literally covered by real blood.

And Jesus really broke the bread and shared it and the wine.
Yes, that really happened, and He really was there, with real bread in His real hands.
And it was also symbolic of His body that would soon be 'broken' (though it says, not a bone) and His blood would soon be shed on the cross.
Very real and very symbolic.

 

[Josiah]

To Snefle and others....


On Earth, in the flesh, with His mouth promised: "I am with you always."

The word "I" here refers to JESUS - who is both God and a flesh and blood human being, both.
The verb is "AM" The tense is that's currently true and this truth continues indefinitely into the future.
The "YOU" is plural; most understand this as applying to all Christians (or at least several persons in various locales even now).

Do you believe Him?????????? Or was He being deceptive at best or just lying or maybe just sharing a mushy, sentimental emotion signifiying nothing, not really true?


I have a Ph.D. in physics and I don't understand the physcis of His promise AT ALL. Not a bit, not at all. How can this flesh and blood man (weighing maybe 160 pounds or so) how can He BE everywhere, always.... with me, with Lamm, with MoreCoffee, with Snefle... right now? And how is it I can't take a nice photo of Him with my new phone? I can't understand how this can be...... physics can't explain how this can be..... I can't answer ANY questions people may be able to ask about any of this. Yet Jesus promised that it is true! It's His last promise while still on Earth! People references it very often!

Since physics can't explain it, some in this thread have argued it cannot be true. Jesus (as the God/Man) CANNOT do it according to THEIR 'understanding' of physics. God can only do what THEY can understand and explain via physics. So, therefore, the verb "am" here means "am NOT." By the same principle, "Jesus is risen" must be rejected as not really true. And of course, what happens to "God is Triune" and "Jesus is God?" Since "is" only means "is" when we can prove it by one's understanding of physics, otherwise "is" means "is NOT actually."



That is what I (and most Christians now; all before 1500) disagree with. THAT is the discussion of this thread (the one MoreCoffee sought us to discuss). Some insist that when the Bible says "is" the 'default' and 'natural' spin is that is means IS NOT, NOT SO, NOT ACTUALLY unless and until either 1) It can be shown via our current human understandings of physics that this is possible/likely, 2) We can answer all questions asked about it in a scientifically supported way, 3) we ignore the verb and the words in the Bible and consider instead what each feels the Holy Spirit whispered to them, in stead of and in place of what Jesus actually said or the Holy Spirit inspired to be penned in His Scriptures to us. THIS is what I (and most Christians now; all before 1500) disagree with.

That some Christians can't explain via their own understanding of physics how Jesus can be present in Communion and therefore He can't be is the issue here: it's the principle, the reason for the rejection that is very disconcerning... and IMO is the "Pandora' Box" that is destroying so much of Christianity. Why believe the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus or the incarnation or the resurrection? We can't and shouldn't if we apply the same principle being promoted here. That less than 1% of the time "is" refers to a metaphor does NOT imply the principle some are promoting here: that the default meaning of "is" is "is NOT actually, NOT really so". "Is" only means "is" if self concludes that the understanding of physics by self concludes it's possible, only if self can answer all questions raised by people via physics concerning it. "It ain't true unless physics says it is" is a dangerous (but I admit popular) principle (I say that as a physicist).



Here's the historic Christian position: Jesus can be believed. God's written words can be believed. If God says He can do something, that He does do something...... He can (indeed, that it's absurd to tell God He CANNOT do something cuz the understanding of physics by a person says it cannot be done). When the Bible says "is", at least 99% of the time it means is. Yes.... less than 1% of the time, it refers to a metaphor but that's the very rare exception not the default position; the reality that very rarely it refers to a metaphor does NOT mean we must assume that "is" actually means "is NOT, NOT the case, NOT actually true" unless our physics proves otherwise. Historically, Christians have fully, completely accepted that the meaning of is is is when we read "Jesus is the Savior" "Jesus is God" "Jesus is man" "Jesus is the Redeemer" "Jesus is with us always" "Jesus is risen." The tradition is not "IS = is not, not really true, not actually the case" unless physics can prove it and I can answer all questions concerning it. No! For 1500 years, Christians spoke of MYSTERY. In fact, theology used to be called "the Mysteries." The Bible calls on us to be "stewards of the mysteries of God." The things we DON'T understand, CAN'T explain, CAN'T wrap our brains around, DOESN'T "fit" with our current human understanding of physics. The Bible does not call on us to be "destroyers of the mysteries of God" "deniers of God". Traditionally, Christians viewed God as smarter than we, likely knowing more about the things of God than man or even one's current understanding of physics.









.

Snefle:


You indicate that "is" means "symbolizes." Unless you "understand" the physics involved and can explain scientifically how it can be so.... otherwise, it's "spiritually" or "symbolically" true not not actually true.

Consider: The words of the Bible say, "Jesus IS risen." Can you explain that scientifically, via whatever your understanding of physics happens to be? If not, is it not actually true... He is only SPIRITUALLY risen, SYMBOLICALLY risen, His body had to still be in the grave? The words of the Bible state, " Jesus IS with us always." Can you explain that scientifically, via whatever your understanding of physics happens to be? If not, is it not actually true.... He is only SPIRITUALLY or emotionally or symbolically with us but not really, actually with us? Where does your principle that "is" = "is not actually unless my understanding of physics shows it's possible" end? The Bible states that God is the creator, is that not really true but just spiritually true? The Bible says that Jesus is sinless, is that not really true but only spiritually/symbolically true? Where does your insistence, your principle that "is" generally means just figuratively, spiritually, symbolically, emotionally true not actually true end? Whenever you personally happen to FEEL it does? Whenever anyone feels the Holy Spirit has secretely whispered in their ear so that what matters is not what Jesus said... what God in Scripture states but what you FEEL the Holy Spirit whispered to YOU privately? The resurrection could be true... could be false... depending on what a person feels the Holy Spirit happened to whisper to them individually and privately? I see an enormous danger in the rubric, the principle you promote....



- Josiah

 

[user1234]

*To Clarify -----

They really slaughtered lambs, yes, that was real.

It was symbolic of THE LAMB, Jesus Christ, who would be slain for the sins of the world.

So I don't get accused of more heresy -----
Jesus Christ not only WOULD BE slain for the sins of the world,
He IS the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

But there you go, when He was walking the earth, was He in a slain condition?
Of course not, He was alive walking talking breathing eating sleeping praying singing...
Singing, oh my can you imagine Him singing???

But He IS the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world.
So there are times when IS is used literally, there are times when IS is figurative,
there are times when things are actual, times when they're symbolic, and times when they're not mutually exclusive, sometimes they're both or more.
Sometimes an expression is used in the present tense, but in reality it hasn't happened, or been actualized yet. Sometimes things are figures of speech.

Some things are quite plain and easy to understand. Quite often it takes some common sense and context to understand what's being said or implied.
Some things are way beyond any human capacity to comprehend.
But one thing that can be trusted is that God is not the author of confusion.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Let's get back to the thread's topic. Specifically Why can't the bread & wine be the body & blood of the Lord?

Some appear to teach that the bread and wine of the holy Eucharist is just bread and wine (for many grape juice rather than wine) but why can't it be what Jesus said it is; namely that it is Jesus' body, as Jesus said, "this is my body" and that it is Jesus' blood as Jesus said "this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins". Isn't the core of Christian faith in Jesus Christ belief of what Jesus Christ says? And doesn't that imply trust in his truthfulness? Jesus says that the bread is his body and the wine is his blood of the new covenant so why not believe him?​

 

[MoreCoffee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrCN2sJpfvY

 

[Rens]

I'm getting really tired of these, ahem, accusations. You accused me of denying miracles in the bible. That's ahem, false. I'll ask you again to please retract it.

Deny the Real Presence? What does that even mean?
I don't deny the presence of God, if that's also what you're accusing.
He's with us now.
That's a far cry from a religious denominations claim that Jesus is in a machine-stamped wafer, or thousands of them. That isn't a denial of God's miracles in the bible.
That's a disagreement over a religious doctrine.

And I'll still need you to be more specific regarding passover.
Just adding the word 'first' doesn't clarify your meaning.
The first time death passed over the households of the first-borns?
The first passover lamb? Or meal? Can you be more specific?
Chapter and verse?
And even on the question itself .... What do you mean real or symbolic?
As if it's either or? Of course they're all real, and there's symbolism in them all.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.

They really slaughtered lambs, yes, that was real.
It was symbolic of THE LAMB, Jesus Christ, who would be slain for the sins of the world.

They really put the blood on the doorposts, yes, that was real.
And it was symbolic of of Jesus' shed blood on the cross.

And death really passed over those homes.
And that was symbolic of death passing over us,
because God sees us covered by the blood of Christ .....
BY FAITH, not by us literally covered by real blood.

And Jesus really broke the bread and shared it and the wine.
Yes, that really happened, and He really was there, with real bread in His real hands.
And it was also symbolic of His body that would soon be 'broken' (though it says, not a bone) and His blood would soon be shed on the cross.
Very real and very symbolic.

We are covered by His real blood. He cleansed the heavens with His blood. Must be spiritual or something. It's alive and it speaks, yet I don't believe it's in the wine.