COMMUNION: Does "is" mean "is?" Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical

[Josiah]

MennoSota,


Real Presence is not complicated.


Real Presence simply accepts and believes what Jesus said and Paul penned. As is. No doubts, no denials, no deleting what they stated and replacing it with what self things must be the truth.

It's not rocket science. It's not complicated.

"Is" = is.
"Body" = body
"Blood" = blood
"Bread" = bread

Just as Jesus said. Just as Paul penned. Nothing added, nothing deleted. Everything accepted, nothing denied.


It's not rocket science, it's not complicated.


Real Presence does NOT insert into the mouth of Jesus words He didn't say such as "NOT" "represents" "symbolizes" "metaphor" "change" "alchemy" "Transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "Accidents" "sacrifice" while deleting words He did say.


It's not rocket science, it's not all that complicated.


I think what's complicated is the new invention of Ulrich Zwingli that "is" actually means "is NOT" when "is" conflicts with the (wrong) Christology and (wrong) physics of Ulrich Zwingli (or any other).


Now, yes, this raises physics questions. Just as we have with the Two Natures of Christ and the Trinity and a whole LOT of other truths. But for 1500+ years, all Christians were humble enough to accept that God just may know more about the things of God than our current scientists do, there's no reason to shout "NO WAY!" to what God so clearly states just because we have difficulty explaining it via our current understandings of physics. For 1500 years, Christians didn't use words like "theology" and "doctrine" very much, rather the truths of God were called "The MYSTERIES of God." Scripture calls on Christians to be "Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God," not "Correctors of God getting God out of trouble and falsehood by making it fit our human ideas of philosophy and physics." As with the Trinity and the Two Natures and so many other things, accept what God says because God knows and God says.... if our puny, fallen, sinful, limited brains can't totally wrap themselves around it, that's really not shocking and doesn't make God wrong.



The "is NOT" view, the "it's not really true but metaphor" view was invented by Ulrich Zwingli in the 16th Century because his (wrong) Christology and his (wrong) view of physics read what Jesus said and Paul penned... what all Christians up until then had accepted and believed and treasured in unity..... and shouted "NO WAY! CAN'T BE TRUE!" So he did something new and radical: insisting that we cannot accept what Jesus said and Paul penned because it didn't jibe with Ulrich's (wrong) Christology and (wrong) view of physics. Today, much of modern "Evangelicalism" and some of modern Calvinism has bought into his revolution, his new theory dividing Christianity in the process and of course raising HIGH the thought that if Scripture states something that doesn't "jibe" with an individual's own philosophy and concepts of science, then Scripture is wrong and we must "spin" it to "say" the opposite of what it states in order to keep God from being wrong. Much of liberalism traces back to Zwingli and his revolution.



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

LOL, you're a funny person. I can tell you that every Finn had to be registered in the Lutheran church, regardless of whether they believed. I can tell you that the princes who followed Luther killed those who didn't become a part of the Lutheran church.
Separation of Church and State was an Anabaptist viewpoint that didn't fully find root until the United States was formed in 1787.

You think that was funny? Then imagine how funny it was to me, an historian, to read you saying, with all the usual scorn, that I should have known that Bloody Queen Mary had some control over the churches or governments of Sweden or Finland!!

 

[MennoSota]

... has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your point that we must accept and believe exactly what Scripture says but we must not accept and believe exactly what Scripture says vis-a-vis Holy Communion; it supplies NOTHING to your point that when Jesus said and Paul penned "is" they MEANT "is not" because you have so decided.



.

Lack of Separation of Church and State has to do with why a false teaching goes on so long.

You call is, is, but then say it isn't really. You're all twisted up in knots.

 

[MennoSota]

We all know that...unless it is agreed that Transubstantiation is a version of it that stretches the meaning of "Real Presence" improperly. Either way, this is not the issue. It's your unwillingness or inability to address the issue (Real Presence), preferring to switch off to Sacrifice or something else, that is the problem.


In other words, I actually understand the issue.

But let me make this easier for you. Every time you are stumped or called out on something ridiculous and indefensible that's been posted, we can always expect to read that our denominations make us say whatever you don't like to read. So, from here on, I will simply take that reply for granted. You just type YD, meaning "your denomination" and we'll all know that you've invoked the whole schpeel. Simple and quick.

You understand the convoluted view of Lutherans...okay...

 

[Imalive]

And now it's time to have a love meal together.

 

[Albion]

You understand the convoluted view of Lutherans...okay...

Actually, it's not especially convoluted and it has been explained to you here only about ten times.

 

[Josiah]

Real Presence is not complicated.


Real Presence simply accepts and believes what Jesus said and Paul penned. As is. No doubts, no denials, no deleting what they stated and replacing it with what self things must be the truth.


It's not rocket science. It's not complicated.

"Is" = is.
"Body" = body
"Blood" = blood
"Bread" = bread

Just as Jesus said. Just as Paul penned. Nothing added, nothing deleted. Everything accepted, nothing denied.


It's not rocket science, it's not complicated.


Real Presence does NOT insert into the mouth of Jesus words He didn't say such as "NOT" "represents" "symbolizes" "metaphor" "change" "alchemy" "Transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "Accidents" "sacrifice" while deleting words He did say.


It's not rocket science, it's not all that complicated.


I think what's complicated is the new invention of Ulrich Zwingli that "is" actually means "is NOT" when "is" conflicts with the (wrong) Christology and (wrong) physics of Ulrich Zwingli (or any other).


Now, yes, this raises physics questions. Just as we have with the Two Natures of Christ and the Trinity and a whole LOT of other truths. But for 1500+ years, all Christians were humble enough to accept that God just may know more about the things of God than our current scientists do, there's no reason to shout "NO WAY!" to what God so clearly states just because we have difficulty explaining it via our current understandings of physics. For 1500 years, Christians didn't use words like "theology" and "doctrine" very much, rather the truths of God were called "The MYSTERIES of God." Scripture calls on Christians to be "Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God," not "Correctors of God getting God out of trouble and falsehood by making it fit our human ideas of philosophy and physics." As with the Trinity and the Two Natures and so many other things, accept what God says because God knows and God says.... if our puny, fallen, sinful, limited brains can't totally wrap themselves around it, that's really not shocking and doesn't make God wrong.



The "is NOT" view, the "it's not really true but metaphor" view was invented by Ulrich Zwingli in the 16th Century because his (wrong) Christology and his (wrong) view of physics read what Jesus said and Paul penned... what all Christians up until then had accepted and believed and treasured in unity..... and shouted "NO WAY! CAN'T BE TRUE!" So he did something new and radical: insisting that we cannot accept what Jesus said and Paul penned because it didn't jibe with Ulrich's (wrong) Christology and (wrong) view of physics. Today, much of modern "Evangelicalism" and some of modern Calvinism has bought into his revolution, his new theory dividing Christianity in the process and of course raising HIGH the thought that if Scripture states something that doesn't "jibe" with an individual's own philosophy and concepts of science, then Scripture is wrong and we must "spin" it to "say" the opposite of what it states in order to keep God from being wrong. Much of liberalism traces back to Zwingli and his revolution.



- Josiah


.

Lack of Separation of Church and State has to do with why a false teaching goes on so long.

No. The relationship between church and state does not prove Real Presence wrong or Zwingli correct. And it does not support that "is" means "is NOT" where Jesus and Paul address Holy Communion. And it does not support your position that we must fully accept/believe words of Scripture but that we must not fully accept/believe the words of Scripture.




.

 

[MennoSota]

You think that was funny? Then imagine how funny it was to me, an historian, to read you saying, with all the usual scorn, that I should have known that Bloody Queen Mary had some control over the churches or governments of Sweden or Finland!!

Where did I say that Bloody Mary had control over the churches or governments of Sweden? By the way...when did Finland become an independent nation?
Your reading skills are taking a hit my friend.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually, it's not especially convoluted and it has been explained to you here only about ten times.

Sure it is.
The gist of the Lutheran belief:
"The is is really is, but it's not actually the real is even though we say it's real. It's only real in some mystical and mysterious way that goes over the river and through the woods, but doesn't actually manifest itself in real flesh and blood...but the is is is, yet not really."
And there you have the Lutheran doctrine of Real Presence.

 

[MennoSota]

No. The relationship between church and state does not prove Real Presence wrong or Zwingli correct. And it does not support that "is" means "is NOT" where Jesus and Paul address Holy Communion. And it does not support your position that we must fully accept/believe words of Scripture but that we must not fully accept/believe the words of Scripture.




.

I never said the relationship of church and state proves anything other than that opposing views would be diminished and ridiculed without a voice.
Therefore the claim of real presence being what everyone believed is simply not true.

 

[Albion]

Sure it is.
The gist of the Lutheran belief:
"The is is really is, but it's not actually the real is even though we say it's real. It's only real in some mystical and mysterious way that goes over the river and through the woods, but doesn't actually manifest itself in real flesh and blood...but the is is is, yet not really."
And there you have the Lutheran doctrine of Real Presence.

Wow. Not even close. And after all the times it's been explained here, and by a number of different posters. :esad:

 

[MennoSota]

Wow. Not even close. And after all the times it's been explained here, and by a number of different posters. :esad:

Even Lutherans don't know what they believe. I don't feel bad.

 

[Albion]

Even Lutherans don't know what they believe. I don't feel bad.

The Lutherans here and the Lutheran churches apparently do.

Time for the YD.

 

[Josiah]

MennoSota,


Lutheranism teaches Real Presence.


It's not complicated.


Real Presence simply accepts and believes what Jesus said and Paul penned. As is. No doubts, no denials, no deleting what they stated and replacing it with what self thinks rather is the truth.


It's not complicated.

"Is" = is.
"Body" = body
"Blood" = blood
"Bread" = bread

Just as Jesus said. Just as Paul penned. Nothing added, nothing deleted, nothing denied. No "Can't be true!"


It's not rocket science, it's not complicated.


Real Presence does NOT insert into the mouth of Jesus words He didn't say such as "Not" "represents" "symbolizes" "metaphor" "change" "alchemy" "Transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "Accidents" "sacrifice" while deleting words He did say. It accepts what Jesus DID say and Paul DID write - just as Scripture states. As is. Accepted, embraced, believed.


It's not rocket science, it's not all that complicated.


Now, yes, this raises physics questions. Just as we have with the Two Natures of Christ and the Trinity and a whole LOT of other truths. But for 1500+ years, all Christians were humble enough to accept that God just may know more about the things of God than our current scientists do, there's no reason to shout "NO WAY!" to what God so clearly states just because we have difficulty explaining it via our current understandings of physics. For 1500 years, Christians didn't use words like "theology" and "doctrine" very much, rather the truths of God were called "The MYSTERIES of God." Scripture calls on Christians to be "Stewards of the MYSTERIES of God," not "Correcters of God getting God out of trouble and falsehood by making it fit our human ideas of philosophy and physics." As with the Trinity and the Two Natures and so many other things, accept what God says because God knows and God says.... if our puny, fallen, sinful, limited brains can't totally wrap themselves around it, that's really not shocking and doesn't make God wrong.



The "is NOT" view, the "it's not really true but metaphor" view was invented by Ulrich Zwingli in the 16th Century because his (wrong) Christology and his (wrong) view of physics read what Jesus said and Paul penned... what all Christians up until then had accepted and believed and treasured in unity..... and shouted "NO WAY! CAN'T BE TRUE!" So he did something new and radical: insisting that we cannot accept what Jesus said and Paul penned because it didn't jibe with Ulrich's (wrong) Christology and (wrong) view of physics. Today, much of modern "Evangelicalism" and some of modern Calvinism has bought into his revolution, his new theory dividing Christianity in the process and of course raising HIGH the thought that if Scripture states something that doesn't "jibe" with an individual's own philosophy and concepts of science, then Scripture is wrong and we must "spin" it to "say" the opposite of what it states in order to keep God from being wrong. Much of liberalism traces back to Zwingli and his revolution.



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

Where did I say that Bloody Mary had control over the churches or governments of Sweden?

You said that Catholics and Lutherans kept church and state united.

I replied that, in the case of Lutherans, that was not so.

You said that it was so in the Churches of Sweden and Finland.

I corrected your understanding of the situation in those lands.

You then said "Wow, you don't know your history. Ever hear of Bloody Mary?"

I had said nothing about Mary or Catholicism or England, so your absurd retort was way off-target. Get it now?

 

[MennoSota]

The Lutherans here and the Lutheran churches apparently do.

Time for the YD.

You apparently can parrot the gibberish of the denomination, but that doesn't mean it makes sense or has any biblical validity. It only means that the is means is, but it is not really the is that the Romans call is. Instead it is is some mystical is that we can't comprehend, but we call it real anyway.

 

[MennoSota]

You said that Catholics and Lutherans kept church and state united.

I replied that, in the case of Lutherans, that was not so.

You said that it was so in the Churches of Sweden and Finland.

I corrected your understanding of the situation in those lands.

You then said "Wow, you don't know your history. Ever hear of Bloody Mary?"

I had said nothing about Mary or Catholicism or England, so your absurd retort was way off-target. Get it now?

You said that there was no connection to church and state and that no heads were cut off. I pointed to Bloody Mary as an example that both existed.
In regards to Sweden, the Lutheran Church and the State were married as one, just like the Orthodox church was married as one with Russia.
This has nothing to do with communion, but it explains how false views get passed on for generations and centuries.

 

[Albion]

You said that there was no connection to church and state and that no heads were cut off. I pointed to Bloody Mary as an example that both existed.

You're trying to re-write an entire conversation. It won't work.

 

[MennoSota]

You're trying to re-write an entire conversation. It won't work.

You misread the first conversation...kind of like you misread the last supper. In both cases I won't change the dogma you have created in your mind.

 

[Albion]

I said to use YD when you know you're wrong. We'll all know the meaning but you won't have to admit it in print.