Communion - Symbolic or Real?

[Full O Beans]

Zwingli's "symbol - represents" view is a man-made religious doctrine, too. You are just parroting (verbatim) his new invention, from the 16th Century.

Both "Transubstantiation" AND "Symbolism" alternatives to just accepting the words come from men and were made dogmas in the 16th Century.



.

Nonsense. God's word interprets itself. You have fallen victim to isms.

 

[Josiah]

Nonsense. God's word interprets itself. You have fallen victim to isms.

I think you've fallen prey to Zwinglism, symbolism, Jesus-don't-mean-what-he-says-ism

But in any case, you and the Catholics like to fight over what Jesus and Paul MEANT to say/pen rather than DID; what ISN'T as stated.




.

 

[Full O Beans]

I think you've fallen prey to Zwinglism, symbolism, Jesus-don't-mean-what-he-says-ism

But in any case, you and the Catholics like to fight over what Jesus and Paul MEANT to say/pen rather than DID; what ISN'T as stated.

.

No, I have fallen in love with Jesus, and I obey Him by guarding my heart and mind, so I am not about to fall prey to religious ideas. Because I know Jesus well, He leads me in right thinking.


.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
If people are going to apply such a rigid standard to "What Jesus said" with regards to communion, apply it across the board and dismiss all symbolism and other figures of speech or admit that the application is selective because of your theology. Thanks.

There's nothing rigid about taking what is said in the last supper dialogues at face value. There's nothing in those dialogues to imply that "this is my body" is symbolism unless one comes to those words with the pre-existing belief that they must be symbolic because the bread still looks like bread and tastes like bread. The same applies to the cup containing the wine that has become the blood of Christ.

 

[Stravinsk]

There's nothing rigid about taking what is said in the last supper dialogues at face value. There's nothing in those dialogues to imply that "this is my body" is symbolism unless one comes to those words with the pre-existing belief that they must be symbolic because the bread still looks like bread and tastes like bread. The same applies to the cup containing the wine that has become the blood of Christ.

There's nothing in the other statements (that you left out my quote) to differentiate them either. *That* is where your rigid (and exclusionary) standard is seen. You don't take them on face value because you know they are symbolic. But with reference to communion, you apply a different standard.

Strictly speaking, even if you apply that standard ("This is what Jesus said") then you should not only believe you are eating flesh, but also a vine as well (John 15:1, John 15:5)

But I bet you don't, do you? :wink:

 

[MoreCoffee]

There's nothing in the other statements (that you left out my quote) to differentiate them either. ...

I left them out because they are off topic. If you want to make a case by analogy then just say so and that's okay, you can pony up with your verses (as you did) and see how your view is received. I, for one, am far from persuaded that any of the passages you chose has any direct bearing on the thread's topic (except for the passage from John chapter six) nor do I think any of them supports a case made by analogy since all (except the one I mentioned) are either parables or set the contrast between the heavenly reality and its earthly counterpart such as a gate or door, water, and even bread. See what others think of it, if they want to comment they will.

 

[Josiah]

No, I have fallen in love with Jesus, and I obey Him by guarding my heart and mind, so I am not about to fall prey to religious ideas. Because I know Jesus well, He leads me in right thinking.
.

Jesus said NOTHING about "symbol" or "represent". ZWINGLI did. You are echoing Zwingli - not Jesus. You are following Zwingli - not Jesus. You are believing Zwingli - not Jesus.


You can debate with a Catholic all day long as to why both of you don't believe Jesus, why both of you deny that Jesus and Paul meant exactly what they said, why you essentially reject half of what follows the Consecration.... but it's both of you holding to the same position. Pot calling kettle black.


See post # 57.



- Josiah



.

 

[Stravinsk]

I left them out because they are off topic. If you want to make a case by analogy then just say so and that's okay, you can pony up with your verses (as you did) and see how your view is received. I, for one, am far from persuaded that any of the passages you chose has any direct bearing on the thread's topic (except for the passage from John chapter six) nor do I think any of them supports a case made by analogy since all (except the one I mentioned) are either parables or set the contrast between the heavenly reality and its earthly counterpart such as a gate or door, water, and even bread. See what others think of it, if they want to comment they will.

They are not at all off topic when it goes to showing evidence for symbolism.

But let's pretend such verses did not exist at all for the sake of the topic.

At the last supper when the bread was broken and Messiah referred to it and declared "this is my body" - which part of His body disappeared to be transferred into the bread? Or is it simply a case of Magical transmutation so that Messiah doesn't have one body that was broken at the cross - but anything He declared to be his body is such?

The whole way the story is described screams of symbolism. Why the need to "remember" the sacrifice if the wine and bread somehow become real flesh and blood?

If the wine is blood, why does Messiah call it the "fruit of the vine"? (Matthew 26:27-29) Is it or isn't it "fruit of the vine"?

How is it that the disciples are drinking Messiah's blood of the covenant, "poured out for the forgiveness of sins" - BEFORE He had spilled his blood in the torture and then crucifixion of the cross?

 

[Josiah]

There's nothing rigid about taking what is said in the last supper dialogues at face value.

I agree. Which is why I don't agree with either of the 16th Century Dogmas that insist on the opposite: the RCC's "Transubstantiation/Accidents" and Zwinglism/Evangelicalism's "Symbol, Represents."
BOTH fundamentally disagree with your point of taking it "at face value."
See post # 57.


I think taking it at face value would be accepting that "IS" = is (present, exists, real) - not "is not" or "changed via the precise technical mechcanism of an alchemic transubstantiation or SEEMS like but is not in stead it's an Aristotelian Accident.
I think taking it at face value would be accepting that "body" = body.
I think taking it at face value would be accepting taht "blood" = blood.
I think taking it at face value would be accepting that "bread" = bread.
I think taking it at face value would be accepting that "wine" = wine.

I think taking it at face value would NOT mean substituting alchemy's central premise of Transubstantiation or Aristotle's weird (and wrong) theory of Accidents.
I think taking it at face value would NOT mean insisting that it doesn't mean what it says.
I think taking it at face value would NOT mean that HALF of what follows the "is" actually is NOT.

Modern Catholics and Zwinglian "Evangelicals" can debate until Jesus comes back WHY the words are not to be accepted "as is," WHY what is stated is NOT what is meant, WHY we need to explain what Jesus MEANT to say rather than DID say. But both have dogmas founded on the premise that we NOT accept what is stated. They just don't agree why "is" is a bad choice of words, and WHAT things after the "is" actually aren't.



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

I agree. Which is why I don't agree with either of the 16th Century Dogmas that insist on the opposite: the RCC's "Transubstantiation/Accidents" and Zwinglism/Evangelicalism's "Symbol, Represents."
BOTH fundamentally disagree with your point of taking it "at face value."
See post # 57.


I think taking it at face value would be accepting that "IS" = is (present, exists, real) - not "is not" or "changed via the precise technical mechcanism of an alchemic transubstantiation or SEEMS like but is not in stead it's an Aristotelian Accident.
I think taking it at face value would be accepting that "body" = body.
I think taking it at face value would be accepting taht "blood" = blood.
I think taking it at face value would be accepting that "bread" = bread.
I think taking it at face value would be accepting that "wine" = wine.

I think taking it at face value would NOT mean substituting alchemy's central premise of Transubstantiation or Aristotle's weird (and wrong) theory of Accidents.
I think taking it at face value would NOT mean insisting that it doesn't mean what it says.
I think taking it at face value would NOT mean that HALF of what follows the "is" actually is NOT.

Modern Catholics and Zwinglian "Evangelicals" can debate until Jesus comes back WHY the words are not to be accepted "as is," WHY what is stated is NOT what is meant, WHY we need to explain what Jesus MEANT to say rather than DID say. But both have dogmas founded on the premise that we NOT accept what is stated. They just don't agree why "is" is a bad choice of words, and WHAT things after the "is" actually aren't.



- Josiah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5pKrwnn_2s






.

 

[visionary]

God forbade the drinking or eating of blood. There is no way that He would turn around and make drinking or eating blood any part of His body or His commandment to do in remembrance of Him.

 

[MoreCoffee]

God forbade the drinking or eating of blood. There is no way that He would turn around and make drinking or eating blood any part of His body or His commandment to do in remembrance of Him.

Can not God change the laws?

 

[Lamb]

God forbade the drinking or eating of blood. There is no way that He would turn around and make drinking or eating blood any part of His body or His commandment to do in remembrance of Him.

Blood brings life and they were forbidden to partake in that life, that is why the OT rules were there. Christ brings life and we are encouraged and invited to partake. It's not about God changing His ways but bringing about His plan for us through the Christ who died for our sins.

 

[visionary]

Without announcement from on High?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Without announcement from on High?

There's an announcement. Here it is: "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law." (Hebrews 7:12 NIV )

 

[visionary]

Only the priesthood is applied in that change.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Only the priesthood is applied in that change.

"For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law." (Hebrews 7:12 NIV )

There is a great deal more that is changed than the tribe of the priests. Are Christians commanded to sacrifice animals as offerings to God for peace, atonement, sins, and so forth? No. Those laws are changed. They are abrogated in fact.

Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (2 Corinthians 3:1-3 NIV )

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:7-18 NIV )

We ought return to the thread's topic, which is not the abrogation of some of the laws of Moses but the real presence of the Lord Jesus Christ in the holy eucharist.

 

[Josiah]

The very same people who INSIST we can't "eat blood" enjoy their bacon and lobster..... Perhaps they had an Egg McMuffin for breakfast!

EVEN IF this issue applied (and I don't think it does), Christians generally agree that the food laws (and indeed all ceremonial law) no longer applies. Now, IF they are keeping ALL the dietary and other laws of the OT, they could perhaps make this point (I'd view it doesn't apply) but since they don't, they can't.

 

[Stravinsk]

The very same people who INSIST we can't "eat blood" enjoy their bacon and lobster..... Perhaps they had an Egg McMuffin for breakfast!

EVEN IF this issue applied (and I don't think it does), Christians generally agree that the food laws (and indeed all ceremonial law) no longer applies. Now, IF they are keeping ALL the dietary and other laws of the OT, they could perhaps make this point (I'd view it doesn't apply) but since they don't, they can't.

Visionary is Messianic. My guess is that she keeps the food laws.

Personally, I agree with the food laws, and though I sometimes slip and eat some bacon or ham, I do try to keep them, because I feel it is wise to do so.

 

[visionary]

The very same people who INSIST we can't "eat blood" enjoy their bacon and lobster..... Perhaps they had an Egg McMuffin for breakfast!

EVEN IF this issue applied (and I don't think it does), Christians generally agree that the food laws (and indeed all ceremonial law) no longer applies. Now, IF they are keeping ALL the dietary and other laws of the OT, they could perhaps make this point (I'd view it doesn't apply) but since they don't, they can't.

not me.. I do follow the food laws... I think God knows what He is doing in declaring that which is food and that which we should not eat.