Communion of the Body of Christ

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Interesting side note: Jesus doesn't say his body was broken. He broke bread and said "This is my body, which is given for you." No broken body.
 

RichWh1

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
709
Age
77
Location
Tarpon Springs FL
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Interesting side note: Jesus doesn't say his body was broken. He broke bread and said "This is my body, which is given for you." No broken body.

I know and I didn’t say that Jesus said those words.
So why is it that we break bread?
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I know and I didn’t say that Jesus said those words.
So why is it that we break bread?

Jesus' body was broken at the cross because of the weight of our sins.
 

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
I know and I didn’t say that Jesus said those words.
So why is it that we break bread?
Because Jesus broke the loaf of bread and gave it out to his disciples.
But, few churches literally do that. Most have have the bread already cut up or they use a manufactured wafer to...symbolize...the bread.
 

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
1689 London Confession

of the Lord's Supper

1.The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and showing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.

2.In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the living or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So that the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ's own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

3.The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and the fruit of the vine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants.

4.The denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.

5.The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and the fruit of the vine, as they were before.

6.That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of the elements, into the substance of Christ's body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthrows the nature of the ordinance, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.

7.Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

8.All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I don’t get why it’s hard to understand real presence. Not being able to believe it almost makes it sound like you deny what Christ can do and where He can be.


It's not hard. My First Communion class (we were all 8 years old) found that we all understood it just fine. I do not believe for a minute that our Baptist friend doesn't understand it, he just doesn't like it and wiggles creatively around it - while offering NOTHING to support his denial. All he can say is "It SUDDENDLY became OBVIOUS that what Jesus and Paul said can't be true and so it's a metaphor - but this never happened before Zwingli in the 16th Century." That and parrot some pagan, unbelieving, ignorant haters of Christ and their silly accusation.


What IS hard is all the creative wiggling of Zwinglians... trying to sell that Jesus and Paul didn't understand physics, that Jesus and Paul were telling an untruth, that "is" means "not", that SOME of what follows the "not" isn't but SOME of what follows the "not" is. THAT'S what hard to understand.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,283
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I see it as rightly dividing the Word as some things are lteral and some are figurative. The difference is in how one views it.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I see it as rightly dividing the Word as some things are lteral and some are figurative. The difference is in how one views it.


Respected, understood, appreciated....


But why I think the "it can't be true so it's not" view is to be rejected.


1. IF it's "obvious" that it is "figurative" why did not one known soul, not one Christian for over 1500 years until Zwingli, why did NO ONE (we know of) ever notice what is OBVIOUS?


2. What in the TEXT, what of what Jesus and Paul STATED, indicates that this is figurative? Or can ANYTHING be figurative if that's how someone chooses to take it?


3. I think the "can't be true" argument of Zwingli is a very dangerous road to take, a real Pandora's box. Then why not reject the Trinity? The Two Natures of Christ? The virgin birth? The resurrection? The inspiration of Scripture? ALL of those are mysteries.... none can understand those things.... all of them work against "science".....


4. If this is just a SYMBOL.... that does nothing and is only a FIGURE.... why the warnings? Why the issue of getting sick and dying? There is NO symbol in the Bible, not one "figure" that has any warnings attached to ti (much less stern ones like DYING).
Why would wrongly understanding a metaphor cause one to get sick or to die?


I agree that "rightly" receiving Scripture is important. Generally, Christians have taken Scripture just as it says (quite literally) unless something IN THE TEXT suggests otherwise. And traditionally, we've rejected the idea that the Bible MEANS whatever any single bloat now choose to feel that it does (irrespective of the actual words on the page). The words on the page are pretty clear..... they are no more "impossible, can't be true" than is the virgin birth (also stated quite factually)... the words are there. And for 1500+ years, the entire church.... every Christian alive (as far as any can determine) just accepted the words. As in the Virgin Birth and Resurrection, etc. Yeah, Zwingli (who didn't accept the Two Natures of Christ) couldn't understand the physics involved (no evidence he ever studied physics, however) and THEREFORE said "it must be metaphor." NO KNOWN PERSON ON THE PLANET had ever said that of Communion before! Of course, liberals would say the same thing of the virgin birth a century later; where does that approach end? WHAT "must be metaphor because it can't be true?" Where does that end? It's a very modern and highly individualistic and egotistical way to approach Scripture; it subjects clear and always believed words to one's own "sense" of what can and can't be true. Because self is just smarter than Scripture. And the Bible often proclaims very clear things (and puts a LOT of emphasis on such!) that's just.... well..... not true. It's a big caution sign to ME.


Again, thanks, Bill.


- Josiah
 

George

Tis Theos Megas
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
910
Age
29
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's not hard to understand.
Christ is really present with us, always. No need for a wafer or wine.
However, if we wish to remember Christ's atoning sacrifice, we can symbolically remember by eating a piece of bread and drinking a cup of wine/juice to remember as a community of believers.
What doesn't happen is some mystical granting of extra grace and forgiveness just because we eat the bread and drink the wine.
I don't know why it's so hard to accept remembering Christ's atonement in communion.

Then why did Christ have to dwell among us and come to Earth through His Nativity then?
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,283
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Is it possible because in those 1500 years there was one very authoritive voice that controlled governments and came against any other denom and even went so far as to forbid the comkon folk from reading the Word? Could that be the reason? Sorry, forgot to quote Josiahs post, this is in answer to that.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Is it possible because in those 1500 years there was one very authoritive voice that controlled governments and came against any other denom and even went so far as to forbid the comkon folk from reading the Word? Could that be the reason? Sorry, forgot to quote Josiahs post, this is in answer to that.

The Roman Catholic church wasn't the only church around that believed in the Real Presence. So to answer...NO.
 

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Then why did Christ have to dwell among us and come to Earth through His Nativity then?
God made a covenantal promise to Adam and Eve that through their line a Redeemer would come. He added more to this with his other covenants to Abraham and David. When Jesus came, he fulfilled the covenants. A Redeemer was needed to atone for the sins of the elect. God, himself, became that Redeemer.
God is a covenantal promise keeper.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah said:

Respected, understood, appreciated....


But why I think the "it can't be true so it's not" view is to be rejected.


1. IF it's "obvious" that it is "figurative" why did not one known soul, not one Christian for over 1500 years until Zwingli, why did NO ONE (we know of) ever notice what is OBVIOUS?


2. What in the TEXT, what of what Jesus and Paul STATED, indicates that this is figurative? Or can ANYTHING be figurative if that's how someone chooses to take it?


3. I think the "can't be true" argument of Zwingli is a very dangerous road to take, a real Pandora's box. Then why not reject the Trinity? The Two Natures of Christ? The virgin birth? The resurrection? The inspiration of Scripture? ALL of those are mysteries.... none can understand those things.... all of them work against "science".....


4. If this is just a SYMBOL.... that does nothing and is only a FIGURE.... why the warnings? Why the issue of getting sick and dying? There is NO symbol in the Bible, not one "figure" that has any warnings attached to ti (much less stern ones like DYING). Why would wrongly understanding a metaphor cause one to get sick or to die?


I agree that "rightly" receiving Scripture is important. Generally, Christians have taken Scripture just as it says (quite literally) unless something IN THE TEXT suggests otherwise. And traditionally, we've rejected the idea that the Bible MEANS whatever any single bloat now choose to feel that it does (irrespective of the actual words on the page). The words on the page are pretty clear..... they are no more "impossible, can't be true" than is the virgin birth (also stated quite factually)... the words are there. And for 1500+ years, the entire church.... every Christian alive (as far as any can determine) just accepted the words. As in the Virgin Birth and Resurrection, etc. Yeah, Zwingli (who didn't accept the Two Natures of Christ) couldn't understand the physics involved (no evidence he ever studied physics, however) and THEREFORE said "it must be metaphor." NO KNOWN PERSON ON THE PLANET had ever said that of Communion before! Of course, liberals would say the same thing of the virgin birth a century later; where does that approach end? WHAT "must be metaphor because it can't be true?" Where does that end? It's a very modern and highly individualistic and egotistical way to approach Scripture; it subjects clear and always believed words to one's own "sense" of what can and can't be true. Because self is just smarter than Scripture. And the Bible often proclaims very clear things (and puts a LOT of emphasis on such!) that's just.... well..... not true. It's a big caution sign to ME.


Again, thanks, Bill.


- Josiah



.


Is it possible because in those 1500 years there was one very authoritive voice that controlled governments and came against any other denom and even went so far as to forbid the comkon folk from reading the Word? Could that be the reason?


See the other 3 points, too.


I doubt it. For at least 300 years, there was no "authoritative church" or even a denomination - yet NOT ONE KNOWN VOICE about anything in the Eucharistic texts being "figurative" or "metaphoric" or "not possible" or "not true" NOT ONE. But we have many voices accepting and believing that Christ's Body and Blood are truly present. In fact, we know that some pagan, anti-Christian, haters of Christ and Christianity accused Christians of cannibalism ... and the Christians did NOT respond with "well, but of course what Jesus and Paul said can't be true so it's not" or "But it's all just a symbol and figure of speech.' NOPE. They responded by affirming Real Presence but noting that receiving and consuming are two different things and that we don't consume Him - but He IS truly present.

Also, remember that no denomination controlled government .... what FEW an SHORT cases we have of that are CENTURIES after Real Presence was affirmed.

And of course, remember that Syrian Orthodox, Arminian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox... they ALL boldly affirm Real Presence and most of those for many centuries lived in persecution of the government.

And we have MANY voices through history disagreeing with their denomination... but until Zwingli, not one (that anyone knows of) disagreed with Real Presence.... not one (that we know of) insisted that what Jesus said and Paul penned cannot be true so it must be metaphor, not one (that we know of) ever so much as mentioned anything being figurative in any Eucharistic text. Not until Zwingli in the 16th Century.



I hope that helps.


Thank you, Bill


- Josiah





.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
It's not hard to understand.
Christ is really present with us, always.
No need for a wafer or wine.

"Feed My sheep..."
"I AM the bread come down from Heaven..."
"Whosoever shall eat of this Bread shall have Life Eternal..."


Do you think He meant soup kitchens and sausage and eggs breakfasts?


Arsenios
 
Last edited:

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Interesting side note:
Jesus doesn't say his body was broken.
He broke bread and said
"This is my body, which is given for you."
No broken body.

1 Corinthians 11:24
και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν
And having given thanks He broke (it) and said:

λαβετε φαγετε τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα
Take, eat, this of Me IS the Body

το υπερ υμων κλωμενον τουτο
which for you is being broken

τουτο ποιειτε
This be ye doing...

εις την εμην αναμνησιν
unto the of Me remembrance...

You have a very bad translation...

A prejudiced one that re-wrote Jesus words...

The NAS is such a translation...

You do not get to re-write the Bible
when it disagrees with your pet theory
by which you condemn other Christians...


Arsenios
 
Last edited:

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
"Feed My sheep..."
"I AM the bread come down from Heaven..."
"Whosoever shall eat of this Bread shall have Life Eternal..."


Do you think He meant soup kitchens and sausage and eggs breakfasts?


Arsenios

Did a big bread loaf, known as the I AM, come down from heaven? If you are going to be literal, that is what had to have come down from heaven. Certainly not a human.
Now, do you wish to end your silly thinking that Jesus was speaking literally and not figuratively?
 

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
1 Corinthians 11:24
και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν
And having given thanks He broke (it) and said:

λαβετε φαγετε τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα
Take, eat, this of Me IS the Body

το υπερ υμων κλωμενον τουτο
which for you is being broken

τουτο ποιειτε
This be ye doing...

εις την εμην αναμνησιν
unto the of Me remembrance...

You have a very bad translation...

A prejudiced one that re-wrote Jesus words...

The NAS is such a translation...

You do not get to re-write the Bible
when it disagrees with your pet theory
by which you condemn other Christians...


Arsenios
Since the best English translations say:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is foryou. Do this in remembrance of me.”
~ 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 ESV

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” ~ 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 NASB

And these translations are vetted by a committee of Greek scholars, please forgive me if I don't choose your version over theirs.

However, I acknowledge that the old KJV says broken. I believe the other versions are better. Choose what you will. We can disagree and it's fine.
 

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
It's not hard. My First Communion class (we were all 8 years old) found that we all understood it just fine. I do not believe for a minute that our Baptist friend doesn't understand it, he just doesn't like it and wiggles creatively around it - while offering NOTHING to support his denial. All he can say is "It SUDDENDLY became OBVIOUS that what Jesus and Paul said can't be true and so it's a metaphor - but this never happened before Zwingli in the 16th Century." That and parrot some pagan, unbelieving, ignorant haters of Christ and their silly accusation.


What IS hard is all the creative wiggling of Zwinglians... trying to sell that Jesus and Paul didn't understand physics, that Jesus and Paul were telling an untruth, that "is" means "not", that SOME of what follows the "not" isn't but SOME of what follows the "not" is. THAT'S what hard to understand.
My Lutheran friends don't want to be literal and real when talking about real presence.
Real doesn't actually mean real human flesh or real human blood. But, despite their rejection of real, they still insist their version is real presence.
In fact, it's figurative flesh and figurative blood until it hits the gullet. Then it turns to real flesh and real blood. That way the taste buds aren't affected.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
3,577
Location
Pacific North West
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Eastern Orthodox
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Since the best English translations say:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
~ 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 ESV

You have no idea which translation is better than another...

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” ~ 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 NASB

You do not get to re-write the Bible...

And these translations are vetted by a committee of Greek scholars,

Their translation is garbage because it omits a word from the Bible...

please forgive me if I don't choose your version over theirs.

Ours is the Bible of which yours is a VERSION...

The Catholic Bible in Latin by Jerome is a VERSION of our Bible...

I gave you the Greek, and I gave you a word for word translation, which includes the verb "to break" twice in 1 Cor 11:23-24

Your ENGLISH VERSIONS are re-writing the Bible...

No wonder you think as you do...

I probably would too...

However, I acknowledge that the old KJV says broken.

It says "broken" which is almost right - "is being broken" is correct...

The old KJV is also a VERSION of our Bible...

I believe the other versions are better. Choose what you will. We can disagree and it's fine.


Arsenios
 
Last edited:

Particular

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
441
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
You have no idea which translation is better than another...
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” ~ 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 NASB[/quote]

You do not get to re-write the Bible...



Their translation is garbage because it omits a word from the Bible...



Ours is the Bible of which yours is a VERSION...

The Catholic Bible in Latin by Jerome is a VERSION of our Bible...

I gave you the Greek, and I gave you a word for word translation, which includes the verb "to break" twice in 1 Cor 11:23-24

Your ENGLISH VERSIONS are re-writing the Bible...

No wonder you think as you do...

I probably would too...



It says "broken" which is almost right - "is being broken" is correct...

The old KJV is also a VERSION of our Bible...




Arsenios[/QUOTE]LOL, no.
 
Top Bottom