Communion of the Body of Christ

atpollard · Sep 15, 2019

Albion said:
It is worth keeping in mind, though, that there is a reason for close communion which is not that those people are just given to aloofness towards other Christians.

I personally agree with open communion, but I have nothing but respect for the reasons why churches practice closed communion. I understand their perspective that it is a decision made out of honor and respect for the Holiness of God and His commands.
:thumbsup:

Lamb · Sep 16, 2019

jsimms435 said:
I had a feeling either you or Josiah would make that statement. But, every time a person speaks symbolic language they don't announce it. I don't do that and neither do you. The fact is, that Jesus used symbolic language often. In the parables and also how he spoke to the disciples. If you look for example in John 4:32-36
32 "But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.”
33 Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?”
34 “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. 35 Don’t you have a saying, ‘It’s still four months until harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. 36 Even now the one who reaps draws a wage and harvests a crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together."

This occurs right after Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman. Nobody gave Jesus physical food in this encounter. Nobody. And this wasn't what Jesus was talking about. Yet, the disciples ask each other "Did someone give him something to eat?" Because they are slow and don't get it that he was using symbolic language. he was talking about the food which was "to do the will of Him who sent me." Is that not symbolic language to you?

If you also notice, when the disciples DON'T understand Jesus' symbolism they have to ask Him about it. It was pretty obvious that Jesus was giving them more than merely bread and wine. There was too much importance impressed upon it for it to be only symbolic...too many dangers listed in scripture.

psalms 91 · Sep 16, 2019

It is a sacriment and maybe one of the most important for believers I agree, where we part company is in whether it was true flesh and blood or wine and bread and I hold to the latter as I believe the disciples would have questioned that.

Albion · Sep 16, 2019

psalms 91 said:
It is a sacriment and maybe one of the most important for believers I agree, where we part company is in whether it was true flesh and blood or wine and bread and I hold to the latter as I believe the disciples would have questioned that.

Well, not to complicate things or to take issue with you unnecessarily, but...

...you mentioned only the two extreme views of the matter, one from each end of the spectrum of belief among Christians.

I don't stand by either one of those two myself, and in any case there are about four other well-known interpretations. So the issue is not at all an "either-or" "one or the other" kind of controversy.

Lamb · Sep 16, 2019

psalms 91 said:
It is a sacriment and maybe one of the most important for believers I agree, where we part company is in whether it was true flesh and blood or wine and bread and I hold to the latter as I believe the disciples would have questioned that.

You're saying that Christians either believe one side or the other but Lutherans believe both...bread and wine and body and blood. Jesus held up the bread and He said, "This is my body."

psalms 91 · Sep 16, 2019

That is interesting Lamm as I can only see it as one or the other. I have a feeling that many would be confused by this

NewCreation435 · Sep 16, 2019

psalms 91 said:
It is a sacriment and maybe one of the most important for believers I agree, where we part company is in whether it was true flesh and blood or wine and bread and I hold to the latter as I believe the disciples would have questioned that.

In the Baptist faith, we would not call it a sacrament. A sacrament is what conveys grace. We would consider it one of two ordinances of the church.

psalms 91 · Sep 16, 2019

jsimms435 said:
In the Baptist faith, we would not call it a sacrament. A sacrament is what conveys grace. We would consider it one of two ordinances of the church.

Thank you I stand corrected

Josiah · Sep 17, 2019

jsimms435 said:
I had a feeling either you or Josiah would make that statement. But, every time a person speaks symbolic language they don't announce it.

It's theoretically POSSIBLE that Jesus was using a metaphor. No one denies that possibility. It could also apply to Jesus saying He is the Savior, when Jesus notes His divine nature, the entirely of Baptism could a pure metaphor, heaven could be a metaphor, John 3:16 could all be metaphor. No one denies the POSSIBILITY. Jesus did, very rarely, use figures of speech. No one denies that. But it's rare.... and certainly the "burden of proof" lies with those insisting Jesus doesn't mean exactly what He is saying.

Here's the deal: For 1500 + years, NO ONE saw this as metaphor. No one. Not one. Not anyone. If it is so obviously metaphor.... there's no need to show that's true because it is just obvious.... when why did not one person "see" that for over 1500 years? Not one person, not one Christian, if it is just "obvious?" You CAN come up with a handful of examples of Jesus using metaphors - and every one of them was ALWAYS seen by EVERYONE as a metaphor. Why did no one sere this as a metaphor if it is clearly so? I'll tell you. It has NOTHING to do with being obviously metaphor that for 1500 + years not one person recognized as such, it's that it cannot be true - and thus isn't. In this 16th Century, there arose radical forms of Protestantism ("The Second Wave") with Anabaptists, Zwingli, etc. They did not embrace ancient tradition and a LOT got questioned. This included the Two Natures of Christ ("Jesus cannot be BOTH fully God and man - it's not possible physically".... Jesus cannot be here and be in heaven, it's not possible"..... "God cannot be three persons but also one") A lot of this radicalization of Protestantism was a repudiation of ancient tradition and an embrace of what "cannot be true." Because Christ as God CANNOT be present in bread and wine, thus He is not. Thus the texts which state otherwise MUST be metaphor/ The argument is backward: " It cannot be true so the text cannot mean what it says but must be symbolic." That's the apologetic. Much of radical Protestantism and then Protestant Liberalism springs from this sense of "what CANNOT be true" and the re-interpretration of Scripture away from what it says. People today like to think they are rational scientists who KNOW what can and can't be true, what God can and cannot do (it's limited to their understanding of physics), and what Jesus so carefully and consistenly says... and what Paul so carefully says... well... it violates physics and THUS can't be true, we need to re-interpret the verse so that it "jibes" with modern thinking of what is and is not.

I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. I can understand how 500 years ago, people's understanding of reality would see this as MYSTERY (how Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans refer to Real Presence). And even 100 years ago, folks might have a problem with this. It came down to whether one holds that what Jesus says and Paul pens is possible for God - or if we need to disagree with every Christian for over 1500 years and their nieve idea that this is true. Well.... avoiding bringing people up to speed in terms of physics, the concept is entirely credible in view of modern physics. I'm not saying modern physics proves it IS true, only that it COULD be - is it not impossible. Indeed there are some physicists who would argue there are almost a limitless number of co-realities all around us all time time. Someone who's last science class was in the 10th grade might scratch his head over what Jesus says.... a physicist would not. THAT it is true would be one thing, COULD it be true would be another. Remember too, brother, the very people who first questioned whether the Eucharist can be BOTH bread/body, wine/blood ALSO denied that Jesus could be both Man/God. Zwingli - who first proposed this impossibility in full form - also had the identical same problems with the Two Natures of Christ.

Again, COULD be that Jesus is speaking a metaphor here as He very rarely did; is that a theoretical possibility? Yes. But there's nothing in the text, nothing in the response of the Apostles, nothing in 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, nothing in the early church, nothing from anyone for over 1500 years that REMOTELY so indicates. (Quite the opposite, it seems to me). So what gives Zwingli - individually, suddenly, out of the blue, in the 16th Century - such divine insight that "it cannot be true so it's not?"

One more thing: If it's only a remembrance, we have to wonder why it is given SO much importance? And why 1 Corinthians 11:26-30? Why would such things be true over an impossibility, something not true? Why these warnings, why these very grave things over a pure symbol? Ccircumcision was a symbol.... do we see "if you do it wrongly, they will get sick and DIE?" Do we see any warnings over the symbol of circumcison AT ALL? Or symbols in the Passover meal? Consider 1 Corinthians 11:26-30. Seems to me this makes no sense whatsoever if this is just a metaphor, if there is no body and blood to "discern" because it's not there (it's just a metaphor). Questions don't make theology, but it makes zero sense for the Bible to state the things it does in 1 Corinthians 11:26-30 IF a few in the 16th Century were correct when they (alone) suddenly realized this can't be true and so it's just metaphor, just symbolism.

Thank you.

- Josiah

.

NewCreation435 · Sep 17, 2019

Josiah said:
It's theoretically POSSIBLE that Jesus was using a metaphor. No one denies that possibility. It could also apply to Jesus saying He is the Savior, when Jesus notes His divine nature, the entirely of Baptism could a pure metaphor, heaven could be a metaphor, John 3:16 could all be metaphor. No one denies the POSSIBILITY. Jesus did, very rarely, use figures of speech. No one denies that. But it's rare.... and certainly the "burden of proof" lies with those insisting Jesus doesn't mean exactly what He is saying.

Here's the deal: For 1500 + years, NO ONE saw this as metaphor. No one. Not one. Not anyone. If it is so obviously metaphor.... there's no need to show that's true because it is just obvious.... when why did not one person "see" that for over 1500 years? Not one person, not one Christian, if it is just "obvious?" You CAN come up with a handful of examples of Jesus using metaphors - and every one of them was ALWAYS seen by EVERYONE as a metaphor. Why did no one sere this as a metaphor if it is clearly so? I'll tell you. It has NOTHING to do with being obviously metaphor that for 1500 + years not one person recognized as such, it's that it cannot be true - and thus isn't. In this 16th Century, there arose radical forms of Protestantism ("The Second Wave") with Anabaptists, Zwingli, etc. They did not embrace ancient tradition and a LOT got questioned. This included the Two Natures of Christ ("Jesus cannot be BOTH fully God and man - it's not possible physically".... Jesus cannot be here and be in heaven, it's not possible"..... "God cannot be three persons but also one") A lot of this radicalization of Protestantism was a repudiation of ancient tradition and an embrace of what "cannot be true." Because Christ as God CANNOT be present in bread and wine, thus He is not. Thus the texts which state otherwise MUST be metaphor/ The argument is backward: " It cannot be true so the text cannot mean what it says but must be symbolic." That's the apologetic. Much of radical Protestantism and then Protestant Liberalism springs from this sense of "what CANNOT be true" and the re-interpretration of Scripture away from what it says. People today like to think they are rational scientists who KNOW what can and can't be true, what God can and cannot do (it's limited to their understanding of physics), and what Jesus so carefully and consistenly says... and what Paul so carefully says... well... it violates physics and THUS can't be true, we need to re-interpret the verse so that it "jibes" with modern thinking of what is and is not.

I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. I can understand how 500 years ago, people's understanding of reality would see this as MYSTERY (how Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans refer to Real Presence). And even 100 years ago, folks might have a problem with this. It came down to whether one holds that what Jesus says and Paul pens is possible for God - or if we need to disagree with every Christian for over 1500 years and their nieve idea that this is true. Well.... avoiding bringing people up to speed in terms of physics, the concept is entirely credible in view of modern physics. I'm not saying modern physics proves it IS true, only that it COULD be - is it not impossible. Indeed there are some physicists who would argue there are almost a limitless number of co-realities all around us all time time. Someone who's last science class was in the 10th grade might scratch his head over what Jesus says.... a physicist would not. THAT it is true would be one thing, COULD it be true would be another. Remember too, brother, the very people who first questioned whether the Eucharist can be BOTH bread/body, wine/blood ALSO denied that Jesus could be both Man/God. Zwingli - who first proposed this impossibility in full form - also had the identical same problems with the Two Natures of Christ.

Again, COULD be that Jesus is speaking a metaphor here as He very rarely did; is that a theoretical possibility? Yes. But there's nothing in the text, nothing in the response of the Apostles, nothing in 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, nothing in the early church, nothing from anyone for over 1500 years that REMOTELY so indicates. (Quite the opposite, it seems to me). So what gives Zwingli - individually, suddenly, out of the blue, in the 16th Century - such divine insight that "it cannot be true so it's not?"

One more thing: If it's only a remembrance, we have to wonder why it is given SO much importance? And why 1 Corinthians 11:26-30? Why would such things be true over an impossibility, something not true? Why these warnings, why these very grave things over a pure symbol? Ccircumcision was a symbol.... do we see "if you do it wrongly, they will get sick and DIE?" Do we see any warnings over the symbol of circumcison AT ALL? Or symbols in the Passover meal? Consider 1 Corinthians 11:26-30. Seems to me this makes no sense whatsoever if this is just a metaphor, if there is no body and blood to "discern" because it's not there (it's just a metaphor). Questions don't make theology, but it makes zero sense for the Bible to state the things it does in 1 Corinthians 11:26-30 IF a few in the 16th Century were correct when they (alone) suddenly realized this can't be true and so it's just metaphor, just symbolism.

Thank you.

- Josiah

.

I know this is going to be hard for you, but I am not going to argue with you about this. We share a difference of opinion. I'm not going on and on for pages of this thread debating it. I have shared mine and obviously it is not the same as yours. To me, it seems obvious that Jesus was using symbolic language and I gave an example of how he did that with the disciples before.

Josiah · Sep 17, 2019

jsimms435 said:
I know this is going to be hard for you, but I am not going to argue with you about this. We share a difference of opinion. I'm not going on and on for pages of this thread debating it. I have shared mine and obviously it is not the same as yours. To me, it seems obvious that Jesus was using symbolic language and I gave an example of how he did that with the disciples before.

I just hold that there should be reasons for positions.... that truth should be based on more than "I personally feel....."

I accept that starting in the 16th Century, doubt over many things arose. I know that. THAT you hold to the Zwinglian view is acknowledge, I simply felt it good to discuss... and perhaps examine. IMO, positions are accountable. Certainly, you may just dismiss and/or ignore everything presented - and that's okay, that's certainly permitted. Sad when Christians become dogmatically divided over treasures, and IMO when those who do this fail to give cause. But that's me.

Thank you.

- Josiah

.

MennoSota · Sep 17, 2019

Josiah said:
I just hold that there should be reasons for positions.... that truth should be based on more than "I personally feel....."

I accept that starting in the 16th Century, doubt over many things arose. I know that. THAT you hold to the Zwinglian view is acknowledge, I simply felt it good to discuss... and perhaps examine. IMO, positions are accountable. Certainly, you may just dismiss and/or ignore everything presented - and that's okay, that's certainly permitted. Sad when Christians become dogmatically divided over treasures, and IMO when those who do this fail to give cause. But that's me.

Thank you.

- Josiah

.

The actual reasons have been shared. Scripture has been provided. The position in opposition to you has nothing to do with feelings. The language in the Bible shows that Jesus was not talking literally.

NewCreation435 · Sep 17, 2019

MennoSota said:
The actual reasons have been shared. Scripture has been provided. The position in opposition to you has nothing to do with feelings. The language in the Bible shows that Jesus was not talking literally.

Yes, exactly

atpollard · Sep 17, 2019

As was already pointed out, the Passover Meal was ALREADY symbolic (both of the past and the future) and Jesus was redefining the Body slain and the Blood poured out using significant symbolic items from a symbolic feast to establish a new act to be performed in remembrance of His future ACTUAL sacrifice of His LITERAL Body and His LITERAL Blood.

Can you really see absolutely no reason to find any symbolic dimension to what Jesus said and did at the Last Supper?

Andrew · Sep 17, 2019

atpollard said:
As was already pointed out, the Passover Meal was ALREADY symbolic (both of the past and the future) and Jesus was redefining the Body slain and the Blood poured out using significant symbolic items from a symbolic feast to establish a new act to be performed in remembrance of His future ACTUAL sacrifice of His LITERAL Body and His LITERAL Blood.

Can you really see absolutely no reason to find any symbolic dimension to what Jesus said and did at the Last Supper?

.

Albion · Sep 17, 2019

atpollard said:
As was already pointed out, the Passover Meal was ALREADY symbolic (both of the past and the future) and Jesus was redefining the Body slain and the Blood poured out using significant symbolic items from a symbolic feast to establish a new act to be performed in remembrance of His future ACTUAL sacrifice of His LITERAL Body and His LITERAL Blood.

Can you really see absolutely no reason to find any symbolic dimension to what Jesus said and did at the Last Supper?

It's not that there isn't symbolism there; it's that the Gospel account leaves no doubt that it is not ALL that there is to the Lord's Supper.

Josiah · Sep 18, 2019

I'm curious....

1. If what Jesus so deliberately said.... and Paul by inspiration penned..... is but metaphor, that it is "OBVIOUSLY" symbolic according to the words. ... then why did not ONE Christian, not even one... in over 1500 years .... EVER notice or even theorize or speculate or even suggest such a thing? Not one. Not for over 1500 years. If it's just "OBVIOUS" by the WORDS ON THE PAGE.... "obvious"..... then why did it entirely, completely, wholly allude every single Christian who ever lived for over 1500 years? Did God or Satan universally and completely BLIND everyone to what is "OBVIOUS?" How can that be explained if it's "just obvious by the words?"

2. And why the stern warnings and the effects associated with this? See 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 Read that. Consider that. IF there's no body to discern here because it's not there, then why the warning about not discerning it in the "cup and bread?" My point is not the content of the warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, it's the absurdity of the warning if we're dealing only with a metaphor. Well, maybe God was just kidding or being metaphoric there, too (hey, maybe John 3:16 is just metaphor). Why this punishment for not discerning something that isn't there? Now foot washing was a metaphor, a symbol.... but there's NO warning associated with it, NOTHING remotely of the nature of 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. The Passover Meal was symbolic, but there is never any warning associated with it or consequences associated with it, NOTHING remotely of the nature of 1 Corinthians 11:27-30. 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 seems absurd, even evil and wrong, if Jesus didn't mean what He said, if it's "obvious by the words" that this is only a metaphor.

3. And, perhaps BECAUSE foot washing was universally, always seen as symbolic, it wasn't practiced much by the early church (it's just metaphor) but Communion was critical, a part of every worship service, often seen as the highlight of Christian worship, the Sacrament seen as very important (unlike anything regarded as metaphor or symbol). I'm curious..... if the words mean it's "clearly OBVIOUS" this is just metaphor, only a symbol (like foot washing), then why was/is it seen SO important unlike EVERY case of ANYTHING always seen as symbolic?

Oh, well..... just curious. I'm standing with what Jesus said and Paul penned.... what 100% of Christians for over 15 Centuries universally believed and treasured. I'm just not buying the whole apologetic of "It can't be true - so it's not." IMO, it's likely not one Christian for over 1500 years saw this as obviously metaphoric because it's not. And every Christian held this is very important and a treasured blessing because it is. The biblical warning makes sense because it's not a symbol, we are to discern something because there is something to discern, not nothing. If it was the equal of foot washing, then it would be universally and ALWAYS embraced as such.... not regarded as terribly important.... no warnings about it. Obviously, some have bought into Zwingli's doubts and reinvention and disagree.

This video is 20 minites long, which I acknowledge means no one will view it, but I post it anyway.... Even if one point is considered (say in minutes 4-8), it could be powerful. But yeah, I know...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCEP-z4rGSU&t=24s

My $0.01

-Josiah

.

Arsenios · Sep 18, 2019

Josiah said:
My $0.01

That would be the 1909 s-vbd penny!

The historical argument, in order to be denied, requires that the Historic Church got it wrong...
That Christ failed to impart the Truth to His Own Body...
And that ONLY after 1500 years did the Reformation finally get it right...
And God is thanking Luther with tears to his toes!

So you have to be cautious using this argument from historical Christianity...

Jes' sayin'!!

Arsenios

atpollard · Sep 18, 2019

Albion said:
It's not that there isn't symbolism there; it's that the Gospel account leaves no doubt that it is not ALL that there is to the Lord's Supper.

Really, because I do not see that in the Gospel accounts. Most of the “spiritual” dimension of communion comes from the Letters that expound on it.

Where is this “no doubt” that it is not all just pointing to the future literal death of Christ on the cross exactly as the Passover was? Could you show me what you see.

atpollard · Sep 18, 2019

Josiah said:
I'm curious....

1. If what Jesus so deliberately said.... and Paul by inspiration penned..... is but metaphor, that it is "OBVIOUSLY" symbolic according to the words. ... then why did not ONE Christian, not even one... in over 1500 years .... EVER notice or even theorize or speculate or even suggest such a thing? Not one. Not for over 1500 years. If it's just "OBVIOUS" by the WORDS ON THE PAGE.... "obvious"..... then why did it entirely, completely, wholly allude every single Christian who ever lived for over 1500 years? Did God or Satan universally and completely BLIND everyone to what is "OBVIOUS?" How can that be explained if it's "just obvious by the words?"

Prove it.

You keep making exaggerated claims about “not one person” in 1500 years, so what proof do you have to offer to support your claim. I am reasonably sure that the early Christian Church rejected the criticism that they practiced cannibalisim by eating human flesh and drinking human blood. I would be very surprised if no one ever wrote about it. So where is your proof for a universal belief by EVERY Christian without exception for 1500 years that the body and blood taken at communion were literally and physically that of Christ and that NOT EVEN ONE PERSON believed in a spiritual or metaphorical link to Christ in 1500 years.

It is your claim, your mantra, your drum to pound over and over ... so it is your fact to prove.
I will await your proof (but I will not hold my breath).

Communion of the Body of Christ

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

Well-known member

God's Lil Lamb

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Matt 18:15

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member