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

[MoreCoffee]

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

Are you confident of that?

Exodus 29:37-40 NRSV 37 For seven days you shall make atonement for the altar, and consecrate it, and the altar shall be most holy; whatever touches the altar shall become holy. 38 Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two lambs a year old regularly each day. 39 One lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer in the evening; 40 and with the first lamb one-tenth of a measure of choice flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of beaten oil, and one-fourth of a hin of wine for a drink-offering.

 

[Cassia]

Are you confident of that?

Exodus 29:37-40 NRSV 37 For seven days you shall make atonement for the altar, and consecrate it, and the altar shall be most holy; whatever touches the altar shall become holy. 38 Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two lambs a year old regularly each day. 39 One lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer in the evening; 40 and with the first lamb one-tenth of a measure of choice flour mixed with one-fourth of a hin of beaten oil, and one-fourth of a hin of wine for a drink-offering.

Within like the bread was in the inner court, not an offering. Iirc the later temples had the wine within the temple.

 

[Josiah]

You are correct to assert that with God everything is possible.

But that IS the issue. The very issue of this thread.


We seem to have a strong, passionate group here who proclaim NOT all things possible with God. The issue you raised, obviously, is not which of the common understandings of the Eucharistic texts one might individually embrace (we've had that discussion in other threads; including one I started). THIS discussion is about whether Jesus CAN be present in the Eucharist... His Body and Blood. CAN is the sole, singular, exclusive issue here.


And I admit I was shocked (and dismayed) by the response of many. It seems a LOT of Christians (probably 100% before 1500 and the vast majority now) are "stupid" to quote one poster..... "stupid" to think that it's possible that Jesus and Paul fully meant the "is" they stated. Why? Why CAN"T it be? Why CAN'T "is" mean "is" in the usual sense, the sense that is the case 99+% of the time? We've read: because their understanding of physics disallows it, the possiblility doesn't "cuts it", doesn't allow it, it can't be true according to their understanding of physics. THAT last part is the only part I've replied to.... I see that rubric as profoundly dangerous and deeply disturbing. It's (almost verbatim) what my strongly agnostic anti-Christian coworker says: Science trumps Scripture.... if the Bible says something that doesn't jibe with physics, it ain't true.

Jesus said "this is my body"

EXACTLY! Now, one can choose to think He's using a metaphor but of course that's not the issue here, the only issue we're discussing is whether it CAN be as Jesus said.... or is this impossible with God.


And if the position is taken (as some have) that "is" often indicates things not possible (physics doesn't confirm it as possible; indeed, physics may have problems with it), then, I've asked, what happens to Jesus IS risen? Jesus IS God? Jesus IS the Savior? What even happens to God IS Triune, the Scripture IS true, God IS Creator, etc. - after all "is" means "is not actually" if it's not possible in terms of science. I just found that whole argument deeply disturbing....

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.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!

For centuries, Christians spoke of MYSTERIES..... Scripture calls on us to be caretakers of the MYSTERIES of God..... Truth is NOT subject to anyone's understanding of what CAN be and CAN'T be according to the current understanding of physics. To read, "Jesus CANNOT be in Communion because He can't be in more than one place" is just part of what began to happen in Christianity long ago.... and became popular in the Enlightenment... and has stealthfully made it's way into a lot of Christian communities... This "my understanding of science trumps what God says" is a real Pandora's Box... and the result of it is easy to see (as a scientist, I live with it all around me).

"Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe" MYSTERY, not one's own understanding of physics. FAITH, not God subjected to what one's view of science says is possible or just stupid.



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But that IS the issue. The very issue of this thread.


We seem to have a strong, passionate group here who believe not only are NOT all things possible with God.

I do not think that asserting that the Holy Eucharist is symbolic only and that the bread and wine (or grape juice) is just bread and just wine without any physical or any "real presence" that involves anything physical means that the people holding such views think that God is incapable of effecting a real and physical presence in the "elements". I think that all they are asserting is that God doesn't do that. Not that he is incapable of doing it. I disagree with them, I think they are putting a spin on the synoptic gospels' treatment of the last supper discourse and Paul's recounting of the same and I think they are mistaken in how they deal with John chapter six but I do not think that they are making God incapable of working a miracle. They just deny that God is working the particular miracle implied by a Catholic or a Lutheran or a Orthodox understanding of the real presence.

...

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

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.

So do you.

If you want to eat a wafer and say it's Jesus, if that's what you want to believe, have your beliefs...

No-one in this thread has ever said that!

(and the word is "people"...)

 

[MoreCoffee]

Within like the bread was in the inner court, not an offering. Iirc the later temples had the wine within the temple.

The wine for the drink offering had to come from somewhere. It was clearly in the tabernacle when it was offered there. It must have been in the tabernacle immediately before it was offered. Perhaps it was stored within the confines of the tabernacle all the time like it was in the temple.

 

[Josiah]

I do not think that asserting that the Holy Eucharist is symbolic only and that the bread and wine (or grape juice) is just bread and just wine without any physical or any "real presence" that involves anything physical means that the people holding such views think that God is incapable of effecting a real and physical presence in the "elements".

I agree.

And again, IF this thread were about which of the common understandings of the Eucharist one personally embraces, yup - we've find the different views embraced (worded and discribed variously). But that's not the issue here, as we all know. The issue is CAN. CAN Jesus be present. CAN the "is" be true in its usual, normal sense? Of course one could hold that it CAN but they don't believe here it does. But no one has presented that, only that it's not POSSIBLE. "It cannot be." "it doesn't cut it" "Jesus can't be there and here too" "If it's wine Jesus can't ALSO be there" "It's stupid."


In any case, I've ONLY here addressed the "can't because science WON'T allow it" point. And do you see everyone (anyone?) saying "science has nothing to do with it, physics has nothing to do with it, what God can and can't do has nothing to do with it.... I just hold to the metaphor view HERE in THIS case.' Nope. Of course, maybe none of them have read any of my posts in this thread and don't know what they are rebuking. And maybe some posting here haven't read the title of the thread or the opening post.... it does happen.


For others, MoreCoffee and I disagree on Transubstantiation as DOGMA (I'm actually not bothered much by it as pious opinion), but we agree on Real Presence. I am pleased (genuinely) that MoreCoffee seems to affirm Real Presence than any Catholic I think I've ever met (certainly more than any of my Catholic teachers; I'm not sure any of them remotely even knew what that view is). Catholics and Lutherans share MUCH (including a concept of mystery and a rejection of Enlightenment liberalism and reductionism). MoreCoffee probably doesn't affirm this, but we actually agree on probably 95% of our doctrinal beliefs (more if CC dogma may be regarded as simply pious opinion). But the other 5% can be passionate - equally so on both sides. And for ME.... well, I've never gotten over a lot of Catholic spirituality, my love of Catholic worship, and my appreciation for MUCH that the RCC does and stands for (especially pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-family.... a sense of desency and civil good.... all the social and educational work it does... truth is, I read my Catholic Catechism and a lot of Catholic literature, even often listen to Catholic Radio). Much good there... just not EVERYTHING.


Back to the issue of CAN Jesus be present.... CAN "is" mean "is" in the usual, typical sense?




- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

A simple affirmation of Catholic faith in song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Wk9Z_6mvQ

 

[Lamb]

STAFF NOTICE:

I have done a thread clean up to remove posts that are of a personal nature and do not address the topic. I will not be back online until tomorrow evening. If you find posts that I have missed that do not deal with the topic please report them and another staff member will remove them.

 

[Lamb]

STAFF NOTICE:

Thread is closed until yet another clean up can be done.

If you have any gripes about members, staff, or the site, these discussion threads are not the forum to do them in! Post in the Member Admin Center instead if you wish your voice to be heard instead of your post just getting deleted here. Enough of this type of thing.

 

[TurtleHare]

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.

Are you certain that your portion of text from Clement of Alexander is instruction on the Eucharist since if you read more into him you'll be finding quotes such as this

Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos, in which Clement says:

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

 

[TurtleHare]

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

Other interpretations will show ya how it's the body and blood "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"

 

[Josiah]

Are you certain that your portion of text from Clement of Alexander is instruction on the Eucharist since if you read more into him you'll be finding quotes such as this

Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos, in which Clement says:

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

As I suspected.... this ONE example that was claimed to be found, actually is not: the affirmation of Real Presence was just snipped out.


Thanks for noting that, Turtle!


- Josiah

 

[Cassia]

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.

As I suspected.... this ONE example that was claimed to be found, actually is not: the affirmation of Real Presence was just snipped out.


Thanks for noting that, Turtle!


- Josiah

That still does not take away from the fact that it was noted by Clement of Alexandria to also be figurative.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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…

That still does not take away from the fact that it was noted by Clement of Alexandria to also be figurative.

It is not the bread that is said to figuratively represent anything it is the flesh that is said to do that and the thing that the flesh is said to figuratively represent is the Holy Spirit. Thus Clement of Alexandria is not teaching that the bread & wine are symbolic of the body and blood of Christ, he called the bread the flesh and the wine the blood because Clement of Alexandria believed and taught that the bread & wine in the holy Eucharist are the body and the blood of Christ.

 

[Cassia]

It is not the bread that is said to figuratively represent anything it is the flesh that is said to do that and the thing that the flesh is said to figuratively represent is the Holy Spirit. Thus Clement of Alexandria is not teaching that the bread & wine are symbolic of the body and blood of Christ, he called the bread the flesh and the wine the blood because Clement of Alexandria believed and taught that the bread & wine in the holy Eucharist are the body and the blood of Christ.

Is not what is being received in the Eucharist the Holy Spirit?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is not what is being received in the Eucharist the Holy Spirit?

What one receives in communion is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Cassia]

Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos, in which Clement says:

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

Could you please elaborate on the bolded part, TurtleHare

 

[user1234]

As the days click off the calendar, I'm getting more and more convinced that nearly everyone is either becoming hyper-religious or hyper-nuts! Or both! Or they're the same thing!

Isn't anyone growing less religious and more sane anymore?
(And believe me, after today, I'm questioning my OWN sanity just as much as any!) :smashfreakb:

 

[Cassia]

As the days click off the calendar, I'm getting more and more convinced that nearly everyone is either becoming hyper-religious or hyper-nuts! Or both! Or they're the same thing!

Isn't anyone growing less religious and more sane anymore?
(And believe me, after today, I'm questioning my OWN sanity just as much as any!) :smashfreakb:

Most are just getting sick of others claiming exclusive rights to Christianity