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

[MoreCoffee]

I believe what Jesus says. If I have doubts I ask for wisdom confident that God will grant it. If I still doubt I remember that Jesus gives his life for me and to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJtZaUHn_M0

 

[user1234]

Josiah .... Sorry, but your false accusations .... No, enough of the sweety-pie language, ... Your lies about me are getting older and sadder by the post. Your strawman method of arguement is ridiculous and juvenile, and way beneath what I expected of you. This following statement by you is such a load of ..... Strawman BS --->

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?

I NEVER made any insistence like that, that's such a load of bull and you know it.
But boy, do I see a pattern here. Don't debate an issue with focus, but periodically throw a bunch of false accusations, er, lies, out there and force the other person to either be distracted from the arguement by having to defend himself, or not address the lies, and be accused of tacit agreement.
It's classic. And it's nonsense!

I disagree with a religious denominations opinion on a subject, and I'm accused of denying miracles in the bible.
I point out that not everyone sees everything the same way, that sometimes things are symbolic, but others are not, and I'm falsely accused of going by feelings and 'promoting an enormously dangerous principle' . :=D: Really?! You're kidding, right?!
That's such garbage. It's like arguing with a three-year-old.

Hey, if ppl want to believe Jesus' body is being MASS-reproduced in machine-stamped wafers, and somehow ppl are eating Him by the thousands all over the world, have at it.
I believe that the broken bread and wine at communion symbolize the fact that Jesus died for our sins, and when we share communion, we remember His sacrifice for us, and show His death til He comes, just as He asked us to do.
I have a right to believe that without some religious legalism forced on me, or strawman (see lie) foisted on me about what someone wants to claim I do or don't believe, or some Clinton-esque silliness about what the meaning of is is.
Enough of that already.

 

[Rens]

Communion is about unity, discerning the Body of Christ, the believers. The devil has a great time with churches splitting up over things like this.

I Corinthians 10:16-17

"THE CUP OF BLESSING WHICH WE BLESS, IS IT NOT THE COMMUNION OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST? THE BREAD WHICH WE BREAK, IS IT NOT THE COMMUNION OF THE BODY OF CHRIST? FOR WE BEING MANY ARE ONE BREAD, AND ONE BODY; FOR WE ARE ALL PARTAKERS OF THAT ONE BREAD."

https://www.armyofprophets.com/post/time-for-communion-7155656?highlight=wine+blood

This is from Murjahel, a guy who used to post on cf.

 

[user1234]

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.

Rens, we're not sitting here with real blood dripping off of us.
He shed His blood on the cross.
By faith we believe His shed blood washed away our sins.
We take communion in remembrance of that.

He IS the 'Bread of Life', ... the meat, the nourishment, the sustenance, our spiritual food.
We 'eat' His Word, we 'drink' His Water. He fills us up, and our 'cup' runneth over. :=D:
Our sins forgiven, salvation secured, eternal life given, Hallelujah!
Yes, we are 'spiritually 'covered' by the blood of Jesus'.
But we're not literally sitting here soaking wet with blood. Eww. Messy. :;;D: :wink:

 

[user1234]

Communion is about unity, discerning the Body of Christ, the believers. The devil has a great time with churches splitting up over things like this.

I Corinthians 10:16-17

"THE CUP OF BLESSING WHICH WE BLESS, IS IT NOT THE COMMUNION OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST? THE BREAD WHICH WE BREAK, IS IT NOT THE COMMUNION OF THE BODY OF CHRIST? FOR WE BEING MANY ARE ONE BREAD, AND ONE BODY; FOR WE ARE ALL PARTAKERS OF THAT ONE BREAD."

https://www.armyofprophets.com/post/time-for-communion-7155656?highlight=wine+blood

This is from Murjahel, a guy who used to post on cf.

Yep! Exactly.
Im growing weary of the splits, divides, the casting off of brethren over things that we are supposed to be united over.
If ppl wanna dunk, if ppl wanna sprinkle, if ppl want no water, oh well, so what.
If ppl want to celebrate Jesus in symbols of bread and wine, great.
If ppl want to think He's actually in a wafer, that's their biz.
But when they start insisting we have to believe this or that, suggesting that if ppl dont believe certain doctrines the way they do, and they're making all kinds of other implications and false accusations of heresy and whatnot, no good. (And Im talking about the saved) Too many too willing to cling to their religious teaching and divide and excommunicate ppl that Jesus shed His blood and died for. GBU.

 

[Josiah]

Communion is about unity, discerning the Body of Christ, the believers. The devil has a great time with churches splitting up over things like this.

I strongly agree.

For 1500 years, no one doubted these words... no one spun them or limited them or denied them or spiritualized them to death .... no, for 1500 years all Christians all just accepted the word - fully (albeit the physics left entirely to mystery). No spins. No "can't be." No doubts. Nope. For 1500 years, the words just accepted. By all Christians everywhere. The whole church was perfectly united on this.


Then along came some Roman Catholic "Scholastics" with all their sophistry and their many theories... and then Zwingli with his new revisions since he had trouble with the biblical/universal teaching of the Two Natures of Christ. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "they just couldn't leave well enough alone" - and yes, split Christianity over this. We had entered an age when what the Bible says is replaced with what seems possible in terms of current understandings of physics and philosophy.... mystery being replace with the brain of self.


On another note, see 1 Corinthians 11:29. If there is no Body to recognize ("is" meaning "is not" unless it can be proven in terms of physics and all questions about it answerable scientifically), if the body isn't there... then why this warning?


And again, if "is" doesn't mean that unless it makes sense physically, why accept that Jesus is risen, that Jesus is God, that Jesus is with us always? Why accept that God is Triune or the Bible is true or God is the Creator? Why accept anything Christianity holds since it's all based on is meaning is?

Hey, if ppl want to believe Jesus' body is being MASS-reproduced in machine-stamped wafers

No one does.

I believe that the broken bread and wine at communion symbolize

... because "is" means "is not actually" if you can't understand in terms of physics how it can it. THAT'S the principle I'm disagreeing with.

some Clinton-esque silliness about what the meaning of is is.

Yes. Like you, he TRIED to suggest that the meaning of "is" is not "is." THAT'S what I'm disagreeing with you (and Bill Clinton) about. But more your point that "is" normally means "is NOT actually" if you have trouble understanding the physics involved.






- Josiah




.

 

[Cassia]

I agree.

For 1500 years, no one doubted these words... no one spun them or limited them or denied them or spiritualized them to death .... no, for 1500 years all Christians all just accepted the word - fully (albeit the physics left entirely to mystery). No spins. No "can't be." No doubts. The words just accepted. The whole church was perfectly united on this. For 1500 years.
...

The problem I see with this logic is the absence of those who were put to death for not adhering to that belief. Then to accuse others of heresy like they who put those to death did about those who believed differently than they did is just perpatrating the myth.

 

[TurtleHare]

I been lurking while on my break and now I got like 2 seconds to try to collect my thoughts into something cohesive and still add in all I wanna say on this and here goes. If y'all think you aren't influenced by some type of church teaching then your full of something and you know what it is cuz you didn't just read that holy bible and come to a conclusion on your own on some of the stuff you believe, I guarantee that. You been influenced and to keep pointing at everyone else without pointing to your own self isn't gonna make you a saint.

If you look at the early church and what believers believed your gonna see that they believed that communion was holy and the didache is one example your gonna have to check out for yourself since it was an early guide to teach the new believers and in there they even call the Eucharist as being sacred. If it was symbolic it wouldn't have been thought of as sacred no matter how much your own preachers are gonna tell you it is.

Addressing the original post of the thread now I will answer it that it can definitely be the body and blood and even the believers who insist on symbolism only should open their eyes and see that with God you don't put him in a box so yeah, he can be present in body and blood but theyre saying not can he but is he. That isn't what was asked of you now was it?

 

[Cassia]

The earliest church broke break, fellowshipped, prayed together, and received instruction. When they broke break they did so in remembrance of Him. I don't believe they thought it was Jesus they were eating.

 

[user1234]

Josiah , why do you keep asking the same questions and making the same implications/accusations about other believers in Jesus?
Many are the ppl that JESUS SAVED, and yet, they dont believe in the bread and wine doctrines that your religion insists on.
The questions about IS have been addressed, but you just ignore them, and come back with the same questions and accusations.

Jesus said He IS a door.
Does he have a literal doorknob and literal hinges?
Jesus said He IS a vine.
Does He have leaves growing out His EARS?

You can stop with the 1500 years of perfect harmonious bliss until Zwingli and the RCatholics came along, too. I'm sure many of them would disagree with you there as well.
You want to pick and choose when IS is to be taken literal, and when it isn't, and which things are just supposed to be resigned to as a mystery.
How about allowing others to do the same and not put them down if they dont see it your way. It's Jesus Christ who saved us and made us brothers and sisters in Christ.
Remember?

And wow, what a manipulator.
You've been acting like Clinton the whole time, now you want to spin it on me.
What a joke. You refuse to address the issues, but pick and choose and half-requote to try to bolster your strawman nonsense.

I really thought better of you in the beginning, but the more these tactics go on, the more I see you being just like those typical chatforum antagonists you usually go against.
Unbelieveable.
2 or 3 times now, you just ignore the other obvious uses of the word IS, and just keep spewing your religious legalistic views. Get over yourself, neither you or you're denomination have a lock on God and His Word.

 

[user1234]

So, who was THIS you're pointing at?
If it's me, it's just Another strawman/false accusation comment.
Wow, is there some internet school for this kinda stuff? :=D:

If y'all think you aren't influenced by some type of church teaching then your full of something and you know what it is cuz you didn't just read that holy bible and come to a conclusion on your own on some of the stuff you believe, I guarantee that. You been influenced and to keep pointing at everyone else without pointing to your own self isn't gonna make you a saint

I NEVER said I wasn't influenced by some sort of church teaching. Where'd you scrape that up from.
I've been influenced by great pastor/teachers from down thru the ages, from Jesus, Paul, the bible writers, all the way to many in the present day, and Im thankful for them.
And the Holy Spirit most of all, the one to guide us into all truth. Thank you.

So that falsehood went nowhere.
Falsehood number2, where do you get that Im pointing at everyone?! Ive had a debate with Mostly just one person, sometimes two, but one hasnt addressed my last question yet, but thats ok. I have no animosity, and a simple disagreement over doctrines doesnt equate to finger-pointing. Right?
And please let us know how a person becomes a saint, that would be helpful. :;;D:
Gosh, I like you, TurtleHare , dont be mean to me .... You got them love glasses on. :friends:

 

[Josiah]

Exactly! For 1500 years, no one doubted these words... no one spun them or limited them or denied them or spiritualized them to death .... no, for 1500 years all Christians all just accepted the words (IS, Body, blood, bread, wine, forgiveness) - fully accepted them all (albeit the physics left entirely to mystery). No spins. No interpretations. No "can't be." Nope. For 1500 years, the words just accepted. By all Christians everywhere. The whole church was perfectly united on this. All in unity.


Then along came some Roman Catholic "Scholastics" with all their sophistry and their endless new theories... and then Zwingli with his new revisions since he had trouble with the biblical/universal teaching of the Two Natures of Christ. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "they just couldn't leave well enough alone" - and yes, split Christianity over this. We had entered an age when what the Bible says is replaced with what seems possible in terms of current understandings of physics and philosophy.... mystery being replace with the brain of self.


.

The earliest church broke break, fellowshipped, prayed together, and received instruction. When they broke break they did so in remembrance of Him. I don't believe they thought it was Jesus they were eating.

There has not been found even one Christian before 1500 who denied the words of the communion texts.... who believed this "can't be so must be symbolic" view. Not one. In the 16th Century, two (the RC Denomination and a man named Zwingli) dogmatically proclaimed two NEW views that split Christianity on this: Both based on spinning the words mightily so that "is" means (partly) "is not actually." And ever since, Christians are split: some holding to the view of all Christians for the first 1500 years (no spins, no interpretations, no deletion/substitutions, no doubts - just accept the words) and the two new "is not" views.



- Josiah

 

[user1234]

There has not been found even one Christian before 1500 who denied the words of the communion texts.... who believed this "can't be so must be symbolic" view. Not one. In the 16th Century, two (the RC Denomination and a man named Zwingli) dogmatically proclaimed two NEW views that split Christianity on this: Both based on spinning the words mightily so that "is" means (partly) "is not actually." And ever since, Christians are split: some holding to the view of all Christians for the first 1500 years (no spins, no interpretations, no deletion/substitutions, no doubts - just accept the words) and the two new "is not" views.



- Josiah

Ahhh, and are you saying one is right and one is wrong? Or are both right? Or both wrong? Is there a third possibility?
And are you ever going to address/answer the questions posed to you on numerous occasions? For it would be nice to converse without adding in strawmen, false accusations, and religious platitudes. Is that possible?

 

[Josiah]

Ahhh, and are you saying one is right and one is wrong? Or are both right? Or both wrong? Is there a third possibility?
And are you ever going to address/answer the questions posed to you on numerous occasions? For it would be nice to converse without adding in strawmen, false accusations, and religious platitudes. Is that possible?

I've given the view of most Christians today and of all known Christians for the first 1500 years: The words in the Eucharistic texts are true.... all of them.... and all are accepted. Is = is (has to do with reality, being, existence, presence).... Body = body.... Blood = blood..... bread = bread..... wine = wine..... forgiveness = forgiveness. The physics of that left entirely to MYSTERY (as it is with the Trinity and the Two Natures and indeed all of Christian theology, which until the 16th Century was referred to as "Christian MYSTERIES.") It's the view that Jesus correctly said what He meant and meant what He said; that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul correctly and Paul correctly wrote it. NO spin. NO interpretations. NO deletions and replacements. NO "can't be so isn't." NO denials. NO doubts. NO "only is if I can explain it using my (probably wrong) understanding of physics." Just the words.... accepted. THAT was the view of all known Christians for many centuries. Just like the "IS" in "Jesus is risen" and "Jesus is the Savior" and "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is with us always" an the Bible is the written words of God and over 99% of the other cases in the Bible where the verb IS is found - indeed, if "is" means "is not unless my (probably wrong) understanding of physics explains it" then probably all the teachings of Christians ergo are not actually true.



See 1 Corinthians 11:29 (the verse Zwinglians typically delete and not quote). If there is no Body to recognize ("is" meaning "is not" unless it can be proven in terms of physics and all questions about it answerable scientifically), if the body isn't there... then why this warning? How can we "discern" what you claim isn't there?


See Matthew 28:20. The verb is "IS." Jesus (the nice man) said this..... LOTS of Christians quote this, gaining great comfort from knowing He is with them. But do you reject it as "not so" "not really" "not actually" because you obviously can't explain the physics of it with your understanding of physics.... or is this too not really so because JESUS is not with us (He SHOULD have said "the Holy Spirit is with you but I won't be" or "the Second Person of the Trinity will be with you but not me"). Or do you just strip this statement and promise of all meaning and claim this TOO is just SYMBOLIC, metaphoric and figurative..... He's with us in an emotional sense but not really present? WHY? Because physics says it can't be as He said/promises so we gotta change or spin what Jesus said so that Physics can endorse it? What about "Jesus is risen," is that also just metaphoric, figurative, emotional mush that isn't actually true because your understanding of physics can't explain or accept it as possible? Because if physics doesn't explain it, God can't do it?



- Josiah



.

 

[Cassia]

1 Corinthians 11:24
And having given thanks, He broke it and said, This is My body, which is given for you; this do unto the remembrance of Me.
Ephesians 4:4
One Body and one Spirit, even as also you were called in one hope of your calling;​

Partaking with an eye to division is partaking in an unworthy manner, whether in spirit or in practice. No one is failing to evaluate the significance of the bread,

 

[Josiah]

1 Corinthians 11:24
And having given thanks, He broke it and said, This is My body, which is given for you; this do unto the remembrance of Me.
Ephesians 4:4
One Body and one Spirit, even as also you were called in one hope of your calling;​

Partaking with an eye to division is partaking in an unworthy manner, whether in spirit or in practice. No one is failing to evaluate the significance of the bread,

So, your view is that what Jesus SHOULD have said is, "This (whatever) represents/symbolizes/is a metaphor for the church?" Bread now is symbolic for the church? Jesus would better have said, "This (whatever) stands for, represents, symbolizes, is a metaphor for the church?" "Do this remembering the church?" Rather than so carefully saying (and Paul verbatim repeating) "This is my body?"

 

[user1234]

Yes you continue to repeat what you claim other ppl believe,
and you continue to imply that if anyone else believes something different they're somehow twisting or denying the Word of God, a rather nasty accusation, but you still don't answer the questions posed directly to you in your own words.
I'm not asking what some ppl 500 years ago might have believed, nor the doctrines of religious denominations.
Ppl are free to interpret the meaning of the communion items anyway they want, and there are varied interpretations.
You have yet to even acknowledge there were questions posed to you, let alone answer them.

*I just read 1Cor again.
I dont have time now for the full explanation, but would love to get back to you on it.
In short, vs 29 has nothing to do with whether or not the communion wafer, or bread, is literally Jesus' body , or wine is His blood.
The context is fellowship of the body (of believers) and making sure that the participants are 'in the faith', that is, believing that Jesus gave His body, His blood, His life, for their sins. Unity of the FAITH. Not doubtful disputations over Christ's sacrifice.
FAITH. Not living like the devil, or believing in idols, and still taking communion. Just like he wrote in chapter 10, verse 16-20 ... Read and compare, and read the rest of Chapter 11, dont stop at vs29, but read thru 33-34. The context is the condition of the ppls hearts and faith, not the condition of the bread.

 

[user1234]

He specifically and carefully said He was a door, too, Josiah ... Why won't you address even that one point, let alone the others?

 

[Josiah]

I just read 1Cor again.

GOOD! You might try quoting BOTH the words of institution in the Gospels as well as Paul's very careful and literal verbatim quote references to such. Then underline each time any of the following words appear: Symbol. Figure. Metaphor. Not. Seems. Count how many times those words appear in the Gospel Institutions and in Paul's literal quote of such.


You might do a word study of the MANY, MANY times the word "is" is found in the Bible (EVERY doctrine and belief in Christianity if based on "is" meaning "is" in them). Do you find that in the absolutely overwhelming majority, the meaning of is is is? As in Jesus IS risen? Do you find support for Bill Clinton's point that the meaning of is is generally is not?


To the issue of this thread: Why CAN'T what Jesus so carefully said and Paul so carefully verbatim quoted.... why CAN'T it be true, why CAN'T the is means is..... why were all known Christians for 1500 years SO very, very wrong about this? Why did Paul so carefully quote Jesus if Jesus spoke poorly? The answer you've given is if the meaning typically of is is is, then Jesus taught something that can't be according to YOUR understanding of physics; in other words, your understanding of physics trumps what Jesus said and Paul penned here - and thus the words they used need you to mightily SPIN them them until "is" means "is not" (apologies to Bill Clinton), because you seem to think that "is" can only mean "is" if your understanding of physics indicates that physics agrees - thus you need to SPIN what Jesus said until it's inside out, upside down, "is" meaning "is not actually," until "is" signifies just a figure, a symbol, not really true. So much for Jesus is risen.

In short, vs 29 has nothing to do with whether or not the communion wafer, or bread, is literally Jesus' body , or wine is His blood

So, pointing to that bread and cup - what does the "THIS" refer to, that we are to discern, acknowledge, accept, recognize as present? Do you think that when Jesus said "THIS is my body.... THIS is my blood" the "body" is the church? So we aren't to remember him but the church? The bread and wine are symbols, metaphors for the church? In your church, when you have communion, it's said that this stands for the church? We should remember the church (not Jesus)? Is that what your denomination tells you? Is T?HAT what Jesus was talking about in that Upper Room as they celebrated the Passover? His whole point was that bread and wine are symbolic of the church, when we do this we are to discern that the church is present with the bread and wine, we are to remember not Jesus but the church? Wow..... What amazing things become possible when words can be spun into anything....

door

As I have posted many times, in less than 1% of the cases in the Bible, "is" refers to a metaphor. I've never disagreed with you on that. What I disagree with you on is that ERGO the usual, primary, "default" meaning of is is "is NOT, NOT really." What happens to "Jesus is risen" "Jesus is God" "Jesus is the Savior" and EVERY SINGLE DOCTRINE AND BELIEF in Christianity, ALL based on "is" meaning is - not is not?


AND - to the point of the thread, the point we're discussing - your refusal to accept the words of Jesus and Paul BECAUSE it just can't be so according to YOUR understanding of physics (you've not told us your qualifications in that area), because YOU don't think Jesus CAN be present in Communion as Jesus specifically said and Paul specifically and verbatim quoted Him as saying.... because it doesn't jibe with YOUR concept of physics, because you can ask questions about it that you can't answer with your understanding of physics - well, then it CAN'T be true and you gotta do some major SPINNING (shades of Bill Clinton) so that "is" doesn't mean is, it actually means "is no"t but rather something ELSE, very OTHER than what Jesus actually said. THAT's our disagreement - as I've posted SO MANY times now, over and over, to you. THAT'S my disagreement. As I've repeated and highlighted and embolden many times now. IF.... IF you simply said, " I think just personally have this feeling that this is one of those very, very, very rare cases in the Bible where a metaphor is being used." Okay.... you'd just be disagreeing with me and most Christians. BUT your point was: it can't be so. You kept noting "HOW CAN?" You kept showing how absurd Jesus' words are in terms of your understanding of physics (which I'm gathering is a simple Newtonian concept but I don't know). AS I've posted over and over and over, THAT'S what I find so dangerous, THAT'S what I think is a Pandora's Box that destroys not only mystery but Christianity, THAT'S the point I've been discussing with you for pages now. Interesting.... I'm the physicist with a Ph.D. in physics and I'm the one embracing MYSTERY, faith, acceptance, that God's word trumps typical understandings of physics.... you are the one insisting that "is" must be subject to and limited by whatever YOU think physics permits and doesn't person. What a curious situation....



Thank you.



- Josiah



.

 

[Cassia]

So, your view is that what Jesus SHOULD have said is, "This (whatever) represents/symbolizes/is a metaphor for the church?" Bread now is symbolic for the church? Jesus would better have said, "This (whatever) stands for, represents, symbolizes, is a metaphor for the church?" "Do this remembering the church?" Rather than so carefully saying (and Paul verbatim repeating) "This is my body?"

My view is to the significance of the bread. What it stands for is our relationship with Him, all of it. If I down a cracker and say I have partook of what His life represents w/o even considering it (don't have to, I got my feed of Him already today) then that's what us symbolics believers find unauthentic to meaning in those who just eat a wafer. It's a lot harder to believe symbolically but more authentically.