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

[Rens]

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?"

He said that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is being one with Him in John 6. I'd expect Him to say: this bread now turns into My flesh if it was literal or: My body but then spiritual or not now but in the future after I died and rose.

 

[Cassia]

Those who received Him are those who believed Him. To them is given eternal life. John 1 John 6 etc etc Too much emphasis on believing a cracker is flesh.

 

[Josiah]

He said that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is being one with Him in John 6. I'd expect Him to say: this bread now turns into My flesh if it was literal or: My body but then spiritual or not now but in the future after I died and rose.

John 6 is not about the Eucharist. Communion would not even be instituted for nearly 3 years, quite some time in the future. It began on Maundy Thursday, some HOURS before Jesus' death. THAT'S when it begins, not at the beginning of Jesus' ministry in John 6.

Quote the Institutions in the Gospels and Paul's careful verbatim quote of Jesus' institution. Then we're talking about Communion.

And again, I'm NOT supporting eliminating "is" with "turns into via an alchemic transubstantiation" any more than I'm supporting eliminating "is" with "is not but rather is a symbol for." The entirely UNITIED position of Christianity and all known Christians for 1500 years is that the words are all accepted. No spins. No deletions/substitutions. No doubts. No subjection to one's probably wrong ideas of physics. Just the words. Accepted. With the physics left alone (as we do with all the other "IS" statements on which all Christianity is built...... Jesus IS the Savior.... Jesus IS God..... Jesus IS righteous.... Jesus IS risen..... etc., etc., etc. - you know, EVERY Christian teaching, ALL of them bases on the meaning of is being is, being true), Christians called it MYSTERY - TRUTHS that we don't (and probably can't) understand, truths because God said so (in WORDS we read on the pages of Scripture, words taken as truth) NOT because they jibe with OUR current understanding of physics and what that understanding permits and doesn't permit. But.... sadly..... some centuries ago..... mans ego and great brain began to trump Gods words...... a lot of SPINNING was needed since a lot of words were essentially denied. It's quite a Pandora's Box.... it has split Chritianity (including on this topic - there's no longer ONE UNITED view ALL Christians accept - what Jesus said). Mystery has been replaced with the rule of the brain and understanding of self - what self understands God can and cannot do/be. Dangerous, I think.

 

[Lamb]

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.

The verse you quoted actually supports the Real Presence.

 

[Lamb]

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.

This is very important to the discussion. All the early church fathers believed in the Real Presence. Not one suggested anything symbolic. There is a church father who wrote about the Real Presence about 30 years after the death of the disciple John. Surely if communion were symbolic you'd have that guy telling it that way. But no.

Then, as Josiah also points out in 1 Corinthians there is a warning that comes will illness and death...how many symbols come with that warning? If it's only a symbol, it wouldn't matter.

 

[Lamb]

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.

This is a tangent to the discussion and doesn't state why the bread and wine couldn't be the true body and blood.

 

[Lamb]

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.

The Didache was written anywhere from 65 a.d. to about 85 a.d. gives us a post new testament glimpse of the early church...what it taught, what the disciplines were, organization, etc... It also coincides to what Josiah was saying that the early church fathers believed in the Real Presence. The Didache's teaching of Communion being "sacred" is another proof that the early church did not believe it was symbolic.

 

[Lamb]

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.

Why would it come with such a stern warning if it were only symbolic? And since 1 Corinthians 11:27 starts off with "So then, 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. " then it most definitely is talking about HOLY Communion.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Yes, I tried along these lines before, at one point, being largely ignored.

Snerf, you have not been ignored. Come on.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

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.

Ppl (sic) have never stated that in this thread. I said that to you earlier. Maybe you missed it, or ignored it yourself.

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 also agreed with you on this point. Also missed. However, I accept, by faith, that there is more to it.

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.[/COLOR]

Back at ya. As a matter of fact, no-one forced anything on me as I came to accept what I believe. The evidence was presented, I studied, and accepted it as valid.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Why would it come with such a stern warning if it were only symbolic? And since 1 Corinthians 11:27 starts off with "So then, 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. " then it most definitely is talking about HOLY Communion.

Teacher! Teacher! Me! Me! Me!

 

[Cassia]

The verse you quoted actually supports the Real Presence.

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."

No it supports all being partakers as One Body

 

[Cassia]

This is a tangent to the discussion and doesn't state why the bread and wine couldn't be the true body and blood.

It's very tangent to the discussion when Josiah wrongly says no one believed differently for 1500 yrs

The Paedagogus (Clement of Alexandria)
The Paedagogus (Book I)

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”

But relevant to topic:

Presence=Gk. parousia
used in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9; James 5:7, 8; 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28

None of which refers to the bread.

That is why it could not be. Is doesn't cut it.

 

[Josiah]

It's very tangent to the discussion when Josiah wrongly says no one believed differently for 1500 yrs

The Paedagogus (Clement of Alexandria)
The Paedagogus (Book I)

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”

IF you found one.... one out of hundreds of millions of Christians.... then could you show that the reference here is to the Institutional words in the Gospels or to the Communion text in First Corinthians, and that while showing some figure he is THEREBY also rejecting the literal meaning, not simply ADDING another dimension to it? Otherwise, I don't see how this snippet is relevant at all....

Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9; James 5:7, 8; 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28

As you've proven, NONE of these verses is about Communion..... NONE of them is from the Institution of Communion in the Gospels or Paul's verbatim, carefully repeat of the exact words in First Corinthians. NONE of them. Only 3 of the 19 verses even contain the word "is" (and in all cases, the meaning of is is is).


I know you CAN find a few - a very, very few - examples where "is" references a metaphor. But of course, I could show you MANY times more examples, many thousands of cases, where the meaning of is is is. As in Jesus is risen. Jesus is alive. Jesus is the Savior. Jesus is God. Well.... ALL the cases where Christian doctrine is involved. But of course the issue is NOT whether there are extremely rare cases of "is" being used in references to a metaphor, no one here has denied that, the discussion is whether "is" MUST mean "is NOT actually" if the "is" seems to be outside one's own personal understanding of physics; that understanding "trumping" whenever the word "is" is in the Bible; that Jesus could NOT have meant what He clearly and obviously (and it seems carefully) said.... Paul could NOT have meant the words he verbatim quotes from Jesus... because that "is" isn't possible according to some people's high school physics courses - so it can't be true, the word "is" ERGO must mean "is not actually." The principle you and some others are so passionately promoting is: If when the Bible makes a statement and it doesn't "cut it" with one's own understanding of physics - then it ain't so, and a BIG TIME spin is called for. God is subject to my physics understanding.... God's truth has to "cut it" with my high school physics class.... God can't do what my understanding of physics doesn't seem to suggest. THAT'S the issue I'm disagreeing with. THAT'S what I'm hoping you'll reconsider.



Again: Here's the point.... IF the issue of this thread was "how do you personally FEEL about the 'is' so consistently used by Jesus and Paul when speaking of His Body and Blood in Communion?" and you said, "My opinion is it's a metaphor" then we'd just have a disagreement. But that's not at all the issue. The issue is: CAN it be that Jesus meant what He said and Paul meant what he penned... CAN it be that His Body and Blood are present in Communion? Some have been passionate in saying NO, CAN'T BE SO! And the reason: Their understanding of physics makes it impossible.... they can't explain that in terms of their personal understanding of physics.... they can't answer their physics questions if that is so.... so it can't be so. Jesus actually MEANT "is not" instead of "is." As has been stated, the word means, "is not actually so."

Again, MY POINT: That's a profoundly dangerous rubric! A very destructive Pandora's Box! As you've eliminate MYSTERY and subject the word "is" in the Bible to one's understanding of what is and is not possible in light of their own understanding of physics ( God can only be and do what one's understanding of physics allows), it can only be true if self can answer the questions of self with the understanding of physics by self, then Christianity crumbles to nothingness. What happens to Jesus IS risen? Jesus IS with us always? Jesus IS God? Jesus IS the Savior? What happens to God IS triune? God IS the Creator? What happens with the principle being so passionately defended when 'is" likely means "is NOT actually?" When the usual, "default" meaning of "is" is "not so but maybe a figure or symbol or reminder of" because one can find 1% of the cases where "is" does seem to so indicate? THAT'S been my sole point..... THAT'S the discussion, the disagreement, as I've stated many, many times. THAT'S the issue, THAT'S the disagreement.[/SIZE]


Yet again, the issue is whether "is" MUST mean "is NOT actually" if the "is" seems to be outside one's own personal understanding of physics; that understanding "trumping" the word "is" anytime it's found in the Bible; that Jesus could NOT have meant what He clearly and obviously (and it seems carefully) said.... Paul could NOT have meant the words he verbatim quotes from Jesus... because it's not possible according to one's own understanding of physics, God's revelation being subject to one's understanding of physics. If self concludes it can't be according to their understanding of physics, the a HUGE spin is necessary to turn it 180 degrees, so that the word "is" ERGO must mean "is not actually."

That is why it could not be. Is doesn't cut it.

So you reject it because YOU think it can't be so. Hum.


So physics trumps Scripture. You get to decide that God in Scripture COULD NOT mean the "is" (but should have said "is NOT actually") - because it doesn't "cut it" with your personal understanding of what is and is not possible for God in light of your own personal understanding of physics. What exactly IS that understanding? What training do you have in physics? Does "Jesus IS risen" cut in it terms of physics, you CAN explain that in terms of physics? How about Jesus is God? How about Jesus IS the Savior? How about "The Scripture IS God's written words?" How about God is Triune? How about God IS the Creator? If what the Bible says doesn't "cut it" with your understanding of physics, it just can't be true and "is" must be radically spun to turn it into "is NOT?" Ah.... what happened to MYSTERY? What happened to God revealing to us instead of we subjecting God to our ideas? Why is God now subject to what YOU think about physics? Ah.... the Pandora's Box of subjecting God to self, truth to what self thinks.... and all Christianity soon crashes. Been to any Agnostic websites? I HOPE.... I pray..... you sincerely reconsider the principle being so passionately promoted here..... That is my only intent.





- Josiah



.

 

[Cassia]

IF you found one.... one out of hundreds of millions of Christians.... then could you show that the reference here is to the Institutional words in the Gospels or to the Communion text in First Corinthians, and that while showing some figure he is THEREBY also rejecting the literal meaning, not simply ADDING another dimension to it? Otherwise, I don't see how this snippet is relevant at all....







As you've proven, NONE of these verses is about Communion..... NONE of them is from the Institution of Communion in the Gospels or Paul's verbatim, carefully repeat of the exact words in First Corinthians. NONE of them. Only 3 of the 19 verses even contain the word "is" (and in all cases, the meaning of is is is).


I know you CAN find a few - a very, very few - examples where "is" references a metaphor. But NO Christian theology is based on any.... and of course, I could show you MANY times more where the meaning of is is is. As in Jesus is risen. Jesus is alive. Jesus is the Savior. Jesus is God. Well.... ALL the cases where Christian doctrine is involved. But of course the issue is NOT whether there are extremely rare cases of "is" being used in references to a metaphor, no one here has denied that, the discussion is whether "is" MUST mean "is NOT actually" if the "is" seems to be outside one's own understanding of physics; that understanding "trumping" the words "is" in the Bible; that Jesus could NOT have meant what He clearly and obviously (and it seems carefully) said.... Paul could NOT have meant the words he verbatim quotes from Jesus... because that "is" isn't possible according to some people's high school physics courses - so it can't be true, the word "is" ERGO must mean "is not actually."



Again: Here's the point.... IF the issue this thread was "how do you personally FEEL about the 'is' so consistently used by Jesus and Paul when speaking of His Body and Blood in Communion" and you said, "My opinion is it's a metaphor" then we'd just have a disagreement. But the issue is: CAN it be that Jesus meant what He said and Paul meant what he penned... CAN it be that His Body and Blood are present in Communion? Some have been passionate in saying NO, CAN'T BE SO! And the reason: Their understanding of physics makes it impossible.... they can't explain that in terms of their personal understanding of physics.... they can't answer their physics questions if that is so.... so it can't be so. Jesus actually MEANT "is not" instead of "is." As has been stated, the word means, "is not actually so." MY POINT: That's a profoundly dangerous rubric! A very destructive Pandora's Box! As we eliminate MYSTERY and subject all the "is" in the Bible to one's understanding of what is and is not possible in light of their own understanding of physics; God can only be and do what one's understanding of physics allows, if self can answer the questions of self with the understanding of physics by self. What happens to Jesus IS risen? Jesus IS with us always? Jesus IS God? Jesus IS the Savior? What happens to God IS triune? God IS the Creator? What happens with the principle being so passionately defended when 'is" likely means "is NOT actually?" When the usual, "default" meaning of "is" is "not so but maybe a figure or symbol or reminder of" because one can find 1% of the cases where "is" does seem to so indicate? THAT'S been my sole point..... THAT'S the discussion, the disagreement, as I've stated many, many times. THAT'S the issue, THAT'S the disagreement.







So you reject it because YOU think it can't be so. Hum.


So YOU get to decide that Jesus and Paul COULD NOT mean the "is" (but should have said "is NOT actually") - because it doesn't "cut it" with your personal understanding of what is and is not possible for God in light of your own personal understanding of physics. What exactly IS that understanding? What training do you have in physics? Does "Jesus IS risen" cut in it terms of physics, you CAN explain that in terms of physics? How about Jesus is God? How about Jesus IS the Savior? How about "The Scripture IS God's written words?" How about God is Triune? How about God IS the Creator? If what the Bible says doesn't "cut it" with your understanding of physics, it just can't be true and "is" must be radically spun to turn it into "is NOT?" Ah.... what happened to MYSTERY? What happened to God revealing to us instead of we subjecting God to our ideas? Why is God now subject to what YOU think about physics? Ah.... the Pandora's Box of subjecting God to self, truth to what self thinks.... and all Christianity soon crashes. Been to any Agnostic websites? I HOPE.... I pray..... you sincerely reconsider the principle being so passionately promoted here..... That is my only intent.





- Josiah



.

I'll agree to disagree. But what physics formula do you adhere to?

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=181]Rens[/MENTION] [MENTION=262]Cassia[/MENTION] [MENTION=333]Snerfle[/MENTION]

what physics formula do you adhere to?

I pray you and snifle and others read this..... consider this.....


I don't hold that God's Truth depends on my understanding of physics..... When God says something my understanding of physics seems to not permit, I don't tell God He's wrong and appoint myself to SPIN what He said so radically that it becomes the opposite (as in "is" becomes "is not actually"). I don't have the ego for that.... my Ph.D. in physics does NOT make me smarter than God in that matter..... I believe that God probably knows MORE about the things of God than I do, indeed more than all the Physicists on the planet (past, present and future) combined. I don't tell God, "That CANNOT be so! That' doesn't cut it according to my high school physics textbook!"


I'm posting this as a scientist, one whose vocation is in science and has a Ph.D. in physics: Science does NOT know more than God. Scientists are NOT smarter than God in the things of God. In the middle ages, this ego of man began to grow until God was pushed out of the picture.... that became widespread in the Enlightenment... and it's worked its way into some communities of Christianity (quite innocently)... and it leads to agnosticism, it's the intellectual cause of Christianity's decline and the growing relativism in Christianity. And some here (I'm sure innocently) are promoting and defending it as boldly as at any agnostic, anti-Christian site. What YOU are defending is EXACTLY what my ex-Catholic now Agnostic Christianity-bashing coworker says.... pretty much verbatim. "Christianity just isn't so... it doesn't cut it.... can't be" and he uses the EXACT same rubric you and a few others here do: Man knows more.... Scientists know most.... what the Bible says is all subject to science..... if physics and biology and geology don't confirm what the Bible says - then reject it. That's what you've been promoting - with some others - so passionately. PLEASE CONSIDER THAT..... I pray you will....


AGAIN (yet again)..... IF the issue here were: "What is your own personal FEELING about the word 'is' that Jesus so carefully uses in the Eucharistic texts?" And you responded, "My feeling is it's probably a metaphor" THEN we'd have a minor disagreement, and we easily could agree to disagree, as you put it. But that's NOT the issue here.... that's NOT what we're discussing.... that's NOT my point or Lamm's point or MoreCoffee's point. It's the PRINCIPLE being so strongly, so passionately promoted here by you and others: This idea that YOUR own understanding of physics (and you'd not told us your training there) trumps the clear words of Scripture (found over and over again in the context). Science trumps Scripture...... what COULD be trumps what God says "is." BECAUSE you are just saying this without thinking it through, you'd not considered your own principle: What happens to Jesus is God, Jesus is risen, Jesus is with us always, Jesus is Savior, God IS triune, Scripture IS true..... friend, sister, the rubric you are so powerfully promoting DESTROYS all of Christianity. Man's EGO always does. Luther: "HUMILITY is the requirement for all theology." For 1500+ years, Christian theology was called "Christian MYSTERY." Scripture calls on us to be "stewards of the MYSTERIES of God." Not deniers, not destroyers, not telling God "can't be so, doesn't cut it according to my Physics class." I pray you'll prayerfully consider this...... Please.


Pure aside: You likely learned a VERY simplified form of Newtonian physics in high school or your non-major intro Physics class in college.... This whole issue becomes a LOT more interesting in terms of Einstein's Theory of Relativity where TIME and space take on very different realities.... then the various forms of String Theory, where we have MANY dimensions, many time lines, time travel, realites in paralle universes and dimensions.... well, although Theoretical Physics is not my specialty, ONE of the things I learned is that MUCH could be! So much so, that in one of my undergrad courses, the TA even said that in an intro class where the prof gave some T/F test questions, he told them "If it sounds impossible, absurd - check "True" and you'll almost always get the question right." But all that is an aside. I do not... DO NOT.... consider myself AT ALL more qualified to deny the words of Scripture.... correct God..... tell God what He can and can't do..... just because I have a Ph.D. in physics. NOT... AT..... ALL! We are to be CARETAKERS of the MYSTERIES of God! If it seems to be impossible, that's MY problem, not God's. I HOPE you'll consider that now unfortunately out-of-vogue faith. BTW, it IS largely why I became Lutheran - but that's another issue for another day and thread.



Thank you.



- Josiah




.

 

[user1234]

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."

Listen, you really gotta stop the phony-baloney false accusations!
You really gotta stop falsely accusing ppl of saying or believing things they never said or dont believe. It really sucks, you really gotta stop it!
This is about the fifth time youve thrown this kind of strawman up , and every time it gets refuted, you come back with the same nonsense.

You cant be disagreeing with me about an 'ERGO default position that IS means not really' because I NEVER said that, I dont hold that position, and never did, and it's really getting old and boring watching you say the same shtuff and having to defend against false accusations. Your really need to stop.

It's funny, I was thinking during dinner of coming back on and posting how good it was that so many ppl love Jesus enough to be so passionate about our respective positions on different portions of scripture, and how we could/should really unite and support each other on being IN CHRIST, a rare blessing in this fallen world these days.
But then I read more of this same ..... shtuff!

So if that's how you want to be, you certainly are free to be. If you want to eat a wafer and say it's Jesus, if that's what you want to believe, have your beliefs, it doesn't change a thing from my perspective, and thousands of others, I'm sure.

I believe the disciples knew that Jesus was using metaphor when He broke bread, told them it was His body, and told them to eat it. They're not stupid.

Just like they know when He says He's a door, they didnt start reaching for His doorknob, or checking for a squeaky hinge.
Just like when He said He's a vine, they didnt ask to see if He had leaves in His ears or a grape up His nose.

Sure, some things were hard to grasp, no one ever spoke like Him before, and like Rens so thoughtfully pointed out from the sixth chapter of John, when He said they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood, alot of them were like :yikes: HUNH?

But as His friends walked with Him, in time, they began to understand some things, that He wasnt always being 'literal'. I believe they were starting to get it at the last passover supper. But it's hard for us, it must've been REAL hard for them ....
But, It also shows God's grace and longsuffering towards us all.

The disciples on the road, even after His crucifixion and resurrection, didnt recognize Him or fully grasp what was going on, (although they seemed to know everthing about the events), but when Jesus broke bread with them, then they knew Him.

Not because of 'His Real Presence' in the bread, (I'm still not 100% sure what ppl mean by that) but because of the symbolism, what it MEANT when the bread was broken.

Notice how He was known of them in the BREAKING of the bread, it didnt say the eating of it, though it's probable that they ate it, too, since they were having a meal.
He was known in the breaking of bread, and no wine was even mentioned.

We're saved by grace through faith in what He did. On the cross, mainly.
We share communion as a testimony in remembrance of what He did.
It's an awesome blessing to be invited to do that.
If someone's religious teaching insists on making more out of the wafers, the bread, or the wine for their members, that's their prerogative. No problem, God's grace abounds!

 

[Josiah]

I don't hold that God's Truth depends on my understanding of physics..... When God says something my understanding of physics seems to not permit, I don't tell God He's wrong and appoint myself to SPIN what He said so radically that it becomes the opposite (as in "is" becomes "is not actually"). I don't have the ego for that.... my Ph.D. in physics does NOT make me smarter than God in that matter..... I believe that God probably knows MORE about the things of God than I do, indeed more than all the Physicists on the planet (past, present and future) combined. I don't tell God, "That CANNOT be so! That' doesn't cut it according to my high school physics textbook!"


I'm posting this as a scientist, one whose vocation is in science and has a Ph.D. in physics: Science does NOT know more than God. Scientists are NOT smarter than God in the things of God. In the middle ages, this ego of man began to grow until God was pushed out of the picture.... that became widespread in the Enlightenment... and it's worked its way into some communities of Christianity (quite innocently)... and it leads to agnosticism, it's the intellectual cause of Christianity's decline and the growing relativism in Christianity. And some here (I'm sure innocently) are promoting and defending it as boldly as at any agnostic, anti-Christian site. What YOU are defending is EXACTLY what my ex-Catholic now Agnostic Christianity-bashing coworker says.... pretty much verbatim. "Christianity just isn't so... it doesn't cut it.... can't be" and he uses the EXACT same rubric you and a few others here do: Man knows more.... Scientists know most.... what the Bible says is all subject to science..... if physics and biology and geology don't confirm what the Bible says - then reject it. That's what you've been promoting - with some others - so passionately. PLEASE CONSIDER THAT..... I pray you will....


AGAIN (yet again)..... IF the issue here were: "What is your own personal FEELING about the word 'is' that Jesus so carefully uses in the Eucharistic texts?" And you responded, "My feeling is it's probably a metaphor" THEN we'd have a minor disagreement, and we easily could agree to disagree, as you put it. But that's NOT the issue here.... that's NOT what we're discussing.... that's NOT my point or Lamm's point or MoreCoffee's point. It's the PRINCIPLE being so strongly, so passionately promoted here by you and others: This idea that YOUR own understanding of physics (and you'd not told us your training there) trumps the clear words of Scripture (found over and over again in the context). Science trumps Scripture...... what COULD be trumps what God says "is." BECAUSE you are just saying this without thinking it through, you'd not considered your own principle: What happens to Jesus is God, Jesus is risen, Jesus is with us always, Jesus is Savior, God IS triune, Scripture IS true..... friend, sister, the rubric you are so powerfully promoting DESTROYS all of Christianity. Man's EGO always does. Luther: "HUMILITY is the requirement for all theology." For 1500+ years, Christian theology was called "Christian MYSTERY." Scripture calls on us to be "stewards of the MYSTERIES of God." Not deniers, not destroyers, not telling God "can't be so, doesn't cut it according to my Physics class." I pray you'll prayerfully consider this...... Please.




Thank you.



- Josiah


.

I believe the disciples knew that Jesus was using metaphor when He broke bread, told them it was His body, and told them to eat it. They're not stupid.

1. I didn't comment on what you believe and (and to the point REJECT, DENY, DON'T believe).... I commented on the reason given in this thread for why the "is" is rejected, denied, not believed: specifically the "can't be... doesn't cut it" and the comments about "Jesus' body CANNOT be in Communion."

2. I called no one stupid. YOU are the one indicating that if we accept what Jesus said, that's "stupid." You claim the disciples accepted that "is" here means "is not" BECAUSE they weren't "stupid." I think the bashing of positions, the name calling, hasn't been on the acceptance end of this discussion...

3. AGAIN, still one more time, to repeat it once more..... IF, IF this thread asked, "What is your own individual private feeling about the meaning of "is" in the communion texts?" And IF that was the issue, you replied, "My personal feeling is that Jesus meant a metaphor" then I doubt any would be replied. But of course, that's NOT the question, not the issue, not the discussion. Not at all. The question is CAN Jesus be present. The issue has nothing to do with whatever of the 3 common modern positons you personally embrace, the issue is CAN. And the reply has been "NO!" Jesus CAN'T do that, God CAN"T do that, it CAN'T be so, "It doesn't cut it" "it can't be" to give quotes. It's stupid (to use your word) to accept Jesus CAN be present. Why? Well, most of the posts have been about physics, it would violate physics. THAT last part is what I have replied to, the "it can't be so if it violates physics."

You might want to read what I posted (I quoted it for you here) because obviously you skipped it.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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.

I often think that people assume that they are "not interpreting just quoting the bible" without giving any serious consideration to why they accept a 66 (or 73) book bible as "the bible". They accept the bible used in their church, denomination, meeting because it has been given to them by tradition. They like to ignore that but others notice it. I notice it. Nobody is free from traditions despite their claims to the contrary. And the traditions which influence them are not confined to the size of the bible that they accept. Their beliefs about heaven, hell, faith, unbelief, love, hate, sins, goodness, God, the incarnation and so forth are all coming to them through traditions that they have accepted or absorbed from their contacts with others. No system of belief is "pristine pure bible" and nobody really takes the bible as the sole and sufficient authority for all things necessary for Christian beliefs and practises and everything one needs to know to be saved.

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?

You are correct to assert that with God everything is possible. Jesus said "this is my body" and in John chapter six he said "unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you" so whatever spin one puts on the words - be it minimal or be it complex - what Jesus said can be true even if it appears to contradict a theory about physics and even if it upsets your senses of taste, sight, touch, and smell.

 

[Cassia]

....
Notice how He was known of them in the BREAKING of the bread, it didnt say the eating of it, though it's probable that they ate it, too, since they were having a meal.
He was known in the breaking of bread, and no wine was even mentioned.
...

Interestingly there was never wine in the tabernacle either. That was introduced in one of the Jerusalem temples.