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

[Lamb]

I did watch them as I said, but didn't find the reasons for Lutheran beliefs. What I did watch didn't make sense.

I may not have read all the thread but I didn't see scripture to support the practise over spiritual edification in the communion.

What parts didn't make sense?

 

[Cassia]

What parts didn't make sense?

G'morning. The parts I described in posts 224 and 225

 

[Lamb]

G'morning. The parts I described in posts 224 and 225

You wrote in those posts that the wording used something different than This IS my body. And that didn't make sense to you that they were trying to show by example? Was there anything else?

 

[Josiah]

It would be better representation of what we are talking about if the film had a wafer instead of an apple. The teacher says "this is an apple", well ya it is. Now put in the wafer and say this is Jesus' body. Isn't. But it is signifying His Body.

Thomas said to Jesus, "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the living God." AM. Same verb. Thomas was looking at and speaking to JESUS at the time; the statement is made specifically to Jesus. AM. Why is that not true? Why does "am" and "is" not refer to reality? "He IS risen" "He IS the Savior." "He IS God." If the verb - by definition- indicates a symbol, a representation - the everything Christians believe just got tossed in the trash can because everything we Christians believe hinges on the verb "IS" in the Scriptures meaning is. And yes, all the "AM" statements mean "AM exactly as the text indicates, as two of the videos I shared indicate (both giving a nice review of grammar).

You MAY (I suppose) insist that the meaning of "Is" is "is not" and the meaning of "am" is "am not" (unless YOU just happen to decide otherwise, not because of ANYTHING in text but because YOUR "horse sense", YOUR 'understanding of logic", YOUR concept of physics says to YOU that maybe - this time - the meaning of "is" isn't "is not" but rather is. But that's pure subjectivism, pure relativism, and you would have NO basis whatever to tell someone that the Bible teaches that Jesus is NOT risen, Jesus is NOT the Savior because the Bible says "is." Quite a Pandora's Box.... NOTHING in Scripture then matters..... YOUR "sense" simply trumps the words, the grammar, that statements..... where does that end?

Yes.... in that first apple video, the teacher looks at an apple and says "this IS." The point here is what she's referring to, pointing to, looking at IS. Of course, if the primary meaning of "is" is "is not" then yeah, the teacher is wrong, I do "get" that.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBgsJ73aYlw



Thank you!


- Josiah

 

[Cassia]

You wrote in those posts that the wording used something different than This IS my body. And that didn't make sense to you that they were trying to show by example? Was there anything else?

That was pretty much the whole film.

 

[Cassia]

Thomas said to Jesus, "You ARE the Christ, the Son of the living God." AM. Same verb. Thomas was looking at and speaking to JESUS at the time; the statement is made specifically to Jesus. AM. Why is that not true? Why does "am" and "is" not refer to reality? "He IS risen" "He IS the Savior." "He IS God." If the verb - by definition- indicates a symbol, a representation - the everything Christians believe just got tossed in the trash can because everything we Christians believe hinges on the verb "IS" in the Scriptures meaning is. And yes, all the "AM" statements mean "AM exactly as the text indicates, as two of the videos I shared indicate (both giving a nice review of grammar).

You MAY (I suppose) insist that the meaning of "Is" is "is not" and the meaning of "am" is "am not" (unless YOU just happen to decide otherwise, not because of ANYTHING in text but because YOUR "horse sense", YOUR 'understanding of logic", YOUR concept of physics says to YOU that maybe - this time - the meaning of "is" isn't "is not" but rather is. But that's pure subjectivism, pure relativism, and you would have NO basis whatever to tell someone that the Bible teaches that Jesus is NOT risen, Jesus is NOT the Savior because the Bible says "is." Quite a Pandora's Box.... NOTHING in Scripture then matters..... YOUR "sense" simply trumps the words, the grammar, that statements..... where does that end?

Yes.... in that first apple video, the teacher looks at an apple and says "this IS." The point here is what she's referring to, pointing to, looking at IS. Of course, if the primary meaning of "is" is "is not" then yeah, the teacher is wrong, I do "get" that.


Thank you!


- Josiah

Scripture states that if you eat things that are offered to demons you become one with demons, 1 Corinthians 10. But Paul also says not to eat if it offends others. So I'm still trying to figger out the correlation. Is there anything there that is part of that teaching about the real presence?

 

[Lamb]

Scripture states that if you eat things that are offered to demons you become one with demons, 1 Corinthians 10. But Paul also says not to eat if it offends others. So I'm still trying to figger out the correlation. Is there anything there that is part of that teaching about the real presence?

In Corinth the believers there were starting to return to their old paths such as sacrificing food to idols or eating with neighbors who HAD sacrificed food to demons and correction needed to be given to them. They were being irreverent to the Lord when taking communion after they had sacrificed to an idol. You desecrate the Lord's body and blood by doing that is what was being told to them.

"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?"

 

[MoreCoffee]

Scripture states that if you eat things that are offered to demons you become one with demons, 1 Corinthians 10.

Are you sure that eating things offered to demons causes one to become a demon? First Corinthians chapter ten says this:

I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things are warnings for us, not to desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to dance." We must not indulge in immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put the Lord to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents; nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come. Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

"All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbour. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For "the earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. (But if some one says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience' sake-- I mean his conscience, not yours--do not eat it.) For why should my liberty be determined by another man's scruples? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
1 Corinthians 10:1-33
​

Paul warns "I do not want you to be partners with demons" and that is something to take to heart so that the faithful will avoid participating in idolatry like the pagans do.

But Paul also says not to eat if it offends others. So I'm still trying to figger out the correlation. Is there anything there that is part of that teaching about the real presence?

In first Corinthians ten Paul says "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." and those words speak about communion as both partaking in the body and blood of the Lord Jesus and also that by partaking of Christ's body and blood the faithful become one body just as there is one bread.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #122 on Page 13, Pedrito asked a number of practical questions regarding the topic.

Pointed, serious answers to those questions (or a lack of them) would start us down the road to reality with respect to resolving the bread-wine-body-blood issue with a degree of precision.

Pedrito was hoping for direct, to the point answers from both the Roman Catholic and Lutheran communions, those apparently being the most active participants from the general (what might be called) “there is a change” perspective. Succinct responses from the Orthodox perspective were also welcome.

Unfortunately, the hoped-for style of answer was not forthcoming.

So Pedrito will give example responses himself, hoping to spur some meaningful responses from others thereby. The example responses may not be correct. That is why the questions were asked in the first place.

“Exactly how and when do bread and wine, or bread or wine individually, become the body and blood of Jesus respectively?”

That was a broad-brush question, divided into detailed questions thereafter.

“1. What is the mechanism?”

Example response: “An authorised priest or minister performs some authorised procedure deemed efficaceous for the task.”

“2. What must be done?”

Example response: “A procedure as authorised must be carried out by a person authorised to do so by the organisation to which he (or she) belongs.”

“3. Where must it or may it be done?”

Example response: “Anywhere where there is an authorised person and the appropriate bread and liquid grape derivative.”

“4. When must it or may it be done?”

Example response: “At a time or in a situation deemed compulsory or acceptable by the organisation.”

“5. Who has the power to effect that change, or the authority to perform some sort of ritual that makes it happen?”

Example response: “Any priest or minister authorised by the particular organisation.”

Are they not sensible questions? Are the example replies not to the point?


Pedrito requests precise, accurate feedback regarding the veracity of his example responses.

And Pedrito still requests precise answers to his questions, if his examples are wide of the mark.

==============================================================================================

In response to the questions substituted in Post #127 on Page 13, and all answered “God”, Pedrito simply asks, “under what circumstances” does God do it? What triggers God to do it? What would it take to make the bread on Pedrito’s table right now, become the Body of the Lord?

 

[MoreCoffee]

In Post #122 on Page 13, Pedrito asked a number of practical questions regarding the topic.

Pointed, serious answers to those questions (or a lack of them) would start us down the road to reality with respect to resolving the bread-wine-body-blood issue with a degree of precision.

Pedrito was hoping for direct, to the point answers from both the Roman Catholic and Lutheran communions, those apparently being the most active participants from the general (what might be called) “there is a change” perspective. Succinct responses from the Orthodox perspective were also welcome.

Unfortunately, the hoped-for style of answer was not forthcoming.

So Pedrito will give example responses himself, hoping to spur some meaningful responses from others thereby. The example responses may not be correct. That is why the questions were asked in the first place.

“Exactly how and when do bread and wine, or bread or wine individually, become the body and blood of Jesus respectively?”

That was a broad-brush question, divided into detailed questions thereafter.

“1. What is the mechanism?”

Example response: “An authorised priest or minister performs some authorised procedure deemed efficaceous for the task.”

“2. What must be done?”

Example response: “A procedure as authorised must be carried out by a person authorised to do so by the organisation to which he (or she) belongs.”

“3. Where must it or may it be done?”

Example response: “Anywhere where there is an authorised person and the appropriate bread and liquid grape derivative.”

“4. When must it or may it be done?”

Example response: “At a time or in a situation deemed compulsory or acceptable by the organisation.”

“5. Who has the power to effect that change, or the authority to perform some sort of ritual that makes it happen?”

Example response: “Any priest or minister authorised by the particular organisation.”

Are they not sensible questions? Are the example replies not to the point?


Pedrito requests precise, accurate feedback regarding the veracity of his example responses.

And Pedrito still requests precise answers to his questions, if his examples are wide of the mark.

==============================================================================================

In response to the questions substituted in Post #127 on Page 13, and all answered “God”, Pedrito simply asks, “under what circumstances” does God do it? What triggers God to do it? What would it take to make the bread on Pedrito’s table right now, become the Body of the Lord?

Your questions were answered as follows:

Apologies if this has been addressed before, and Pedrito missed it.

Some of it has been discussed in the thread. Pedrito missed it.

Exactly how and when do bread and wine, or bread or wine individually, become the body and blood of Jesus respectively?

The known facts are there:

• Jesus said "This is my body" as he have the broken bread to the disciples at the last supper.
• Jesus said "This is my blood of the new covenant shed for many for the forgiveness of sins" as the chalice was passed from himself to his disciples at the last supper.

1. What is the mechanism?

No mechanism is explained in holy scripture. In John chapter six Jesus spoke these words:

• I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.
• The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.
• I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
• I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
• Stop grumbling among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
• I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.

2. What must be done?

One is called to do what Jesus commands.

3. Where must it or may it be done?

Wherever you hear the call if the opportunity to obey is there.

4. When must it or may it be done?

When the call is heard and the opportunity to obey is present.

5. Who has the power to effect that change, or the authority to perform some sort of ritual that makes it happen?

God has the power to do what is needed for those who seek to obey him when he calls.

Are they not sensible questions?

Are the answers sufficient for you?

Precise answers are requested. Not runarounds.

The answers are in the holy scriptures for anybody who desires to find them.​

 

[Pedrito]

MoreCoffee in Post #250 on Page 25, repeated the rather vague, not-to-the-point answers (compared to Pedrito’s examples in Post #122) he posted originally in Post #123 on Page 13.

For some reason, the Posters from ritualist churches who responded to Pedrito’s request for precise, to-the-point answers to the highly focussed questions he raised, seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that in their particular organisations, the “transformation” (to use a general term) of the bread and wine actually takes place when, and only when, an authorised priest (or minister) performs a ritual that is deemed efficacious. (It is possible that the component words uttered are accompanied by predetermined motions in some environments.)

Without that authorised ritual (whatever it be in each environment), the bread remains just bread, and the liquid grape derivative remains merely the same liquid grape derivative. Ordinary “parishioners” (to use another general term), except possibly in highly exceptional circumstances of which Pedrito is not aware, do not have the official authority or power to bring about the transformation (or to trigger God to effect it).

Readers from “non-transformation” (another general term) churches might well wonder why the simple admission appears to be so troublesome as to need avoiding. Could it be that other follow-up questions have been foreseen (not by Pedrito yet) that are deemed too penetrating?

==============================================================================================

This thread is titled: “Why can't the bread & wine be the body & blood of the Lord?” The consistent argument from the “pro-transformationists” has been that because God has performed other (clearly recorded) miracles in the Bible, He can obviously perform this one (and by implication, obviously does).

Why then has Pedrito’s precisely targeted question, “What would it take to make the bread on Pedrito’s table right now, become the Body of the Lord?” been left hanging?

==============================================================================================

And with respect to the “The answers are in the holy scriptures for anybody who desires to find them.” offered in both Post #123 and Post #250, Pedrito asks MoreCoffee to assist him by supplying the Scripture references that precisely address each of Pedrito’s itemised questions in Post #122.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Pedrito, I answered your questions with concise biblical answers. Your example answers were straw men to suit your fancy.

 

[Josiah]

MoreCoffee in Post #250 on Page 25, repeated the rather vague, not-to-the-point answers (compared to Pedrito’s examples in Post #122) he posted originally in Post #123 on Page 13.

For some reason, the Posters from ritualist churches who responded to Pedrito’s request for precise, to-the-point answers to the highly focussed questions he raised, seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that in their particular organisations, the “transformation” (to use a general term) of the bread and wine actually takes place when, and only when, an authorised priest (or minister) performs a ritual that is deemed efficacious. (It is possible that the component words uttered are accompanied by predetermined motions in some environments.)

Without that authorised ritual (whatever it be in each environment), the bread remains just bread, and the liquid grape derivative remains merely the same liquid grape derivative. Ordinary “parishioners” (to use another general term), except possibly in highly exceptional circumstances of which Pedrito is not aware, do not have the official authority or power to bring about the transformation (or to trigger God to effect it).

Readers from “non-transformation” (another general term) churches might well wonder why the simple admission appears to be so troublesome as to need avoiding. Could it be that other follow-up questions have been foreseen (not by Pedrito yet) that are deemed too penetrating?

==============================================================================================

This thread is titled: “Why can't the bread & wine be the body & blood of the Lord?” The consistent argument from the “pro-transformationists” has been that because God has performed other (clearly recorded) miracles in the Bible, He can obviously perform this one (and by implication, obviously does).

Why then has Pedrito’s precisely targeted question, “What would it take to make the bread on Pedrito’s table right now, become the Body of the Lord?” been left hanging?

==============================================================================================

And with respect to the “The answers are in the holy scriptures for anybody who desires to find them.” offered in both Post #123 and Post #250, Pedrito asks MoreCoffee to assist him by supplying the Scripture references that precisely address each of Pedrito’s itemised questions in Post #122.

Once again, still again Pedrito,

There are more than TWO positions (both based on deleting words Jesus said and Paul penned and replacing them with other words): The bread and wine really are OR the body and blood really are. "Is" = symbolic, represents, is not really OR "Is" = changed via a physically precise technical process of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian Accidents."


The third position (the historic one) is that all the words are true and to be accepted.
"IS" = is (being, present, real, "there"),
"BODY" = body
"BLOOD" = blood,
"BREAD" = bread,
"WINE" = wine,
"FORGIVENESS" = forgiveness.
All accepted, nothing denied.
All accepted, nothing deleted.
All accepted, nothing substituted (including "spins" that change the words to something VERY different).
All accepted, nothing subjected to (wrong) prescience pagan philosophies or "science" concepts.
All accepted, nothing subjected to one's own (probably wrong) concepts of "physics" because PHYSICS is true, not Scripture.
The HOW is left to mystery (as with most Christian theology, such as the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ and the Incarnation and the Resurrection, etc., etc., etc., etc.).
This third (original) position is called REAL PRESENCE and it is the subject of this thread.



- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

Pedrito, do you believe God's word has power to do what it says it will do?

MoreCoffee in Post #250 on Page 25, repeated the rather vague, not-to-the-point answers (compared to Pedrito’s examples in Post #122) he posted originally in Post #123 on Page 13.

For some reason, the Posters from ritualist churches who responded to Pedrito’s request for precise, to-the-point answers to the highly focussed questions he raised, seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that in their particular organisations, the “transformation” (to use a general term) of the bread and wine actually takes place when, and only when, an authorised priest (or minister) performs a ritual that is deemed efficacious. (It is possible that the component words uttered are accompanied by predetermined motions in some environments.)

Without that authorised ritual (whatever it be in each environment), the bread remains just bread, and the liquid grape derivative remains merely the same liquid grape derivative. Ordinary “parishioners” (to use another general term), except possibly in highly exceptional circumstances of which Pedrito is not aware, do not have the official authority or power to bring about the transformation (or to trigger God to effect it).

Readers from “non-transformation” (another general term) churches might well wonder why the simple admission appears to be so troublesome as to need avoiding. Could it be that other follow-up questions have been foreseen (not by Pedrito yet) that are deemed too penetrating?

==============================================================================================

This thread is titled: “Why can't the bread & wine be the body & blood of the Lord?” The consistent argument from the “pro-transformationists” has been that because God has performed other (clearly recorded) miracles in the Bible, He can obviously perform this one (and by implication, obviously does).

Why then has Pedrito’s precisely targeted question, “What would it take to make the bread on Pedrito’s table right now, become the Body of the Lord?” been left hanging?

==============================================================================================

And with respect to the “The answers are in the holy scriptures for anybody who desires to find them.” offered in both Post #123 and Post #250, Pedrito asks MoreCoffee to assist him by supplying the Scripture references that precisely address each of Pedrito’s itemised questions in Post #122.

 

[Cassia]

...
No mechanism is explained in holy scripture. In John chapter six Jesus spoke these words:

• I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.
• The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.
• I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.
• I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
• Stop grumbling among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
• I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.

• When John 6 has been previously mentioned it was left unanswered because the stance was that John 6 was not about Eucharist. smh
  
  Romans 5:12
  We can assume that all have sinned. But in what way are we convicted in sin? That's really the question... We're deemed righteous in Christ 1 Corinthians 1:30
  
  The judgement is in place for satan John 16:11. Satan is the source of sin and has become father of the human race John 8:44 because of Adam selling our birthright ( in effect.)
  
  The only way to be freed from sin is to believe in Christ, the Son of God. John 16:9 Believe in Him, in His righteousness to us, then we're justified in Him Romans 3:24, Romans 4:25
  
  If we don't repent of the sin that is in Adam and believe into Christ, the Son of God, we will remain in sin and share the judgment of Satan (as the father of the fallen race) for eternity Matthew 25:41.
  
  These are the main points that the Holy Spirit uses to convict humanity.
  
  Call it what you like, penal substitution,whatever ... I call Him my Kinsman Redeemer (read Boaz & Ruth for the example) ....
  
  As a redeemer He is like us but is also God. Ruth was a Moabite that was redeemed into the family of God thru Naomi.
  Christ is our redeemer. He gave Himself up for us, so as to impart life to us.
  That God needed a lamb to cover us is just a fact from the beginning, we're not told why. I guess just to hide our nakedness.
  I know this may seem too simple for some peeps but He had to sacrifice Himself to separate and sanctify the church to present the body to Himself, having been severed in the past. Because we were dead Ephesians 2:1 , belonging to another family, the family of satan's and not of God's family (a Moabite in that sense)
  
  He is the Redeemer ( as opposed to the penal substitution belief ) for the simple fact that it demands penalty for Christians when plainly it is just satan's family that is in jeopardy. What the Traditionalists call perdition doesn't apply to Christians 2 John 1:8 only loss of rewards. And He will redeem us to our final reward in Revelation 5:6, and as God the final redeemer in Revelation 22:1
  
  His work as redeemer
  
  John 6:35
  Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
  
  His flesh is life. As the lamb of God He feeds and redeems, before the fall as the tree of life he was just for feeding on. Then in dying for us He gave His flesh so that we could have life. Blood is also necessary for redemption. Separating the flesh and blood John 6:54 clearly means His death.
  
  John 6:47
  Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.
  John 1:12
  Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
  
  John 6:56 is the resurrected life of those who believe in Him.
  By eating we are taking Him in as nourishment for the new creation for the new way of life.
  
  John 14:19-20
  Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.
  
  John 6:62 involves His ascension which followed redemption as proof His work had been completed.
  
  Hebrews 1:3b
  ... After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
  
  Wherefore He is the life-giving spirit John 6:63 who gives life and speaks in spirit and life.
  
  1 Corinthians 15:45
  So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
  
  As the life-giving spirit He is the life supply. Receiving (believing) Him as the crucified and resurrected savior, the lifegiving Spirit comes into us to impart eternal life. We receive (believe) the Lord Jesus but we get the Holy Spirit who gives us life.
  
  Communion in the way of breaking of bread was the way in which the earliest church recognized Jesus, as exemplified by the disciples at Emmuas.

 

[Josiah]

When John 6 has been previously mentioned it was left unanswered because the stance was that John 6 was not about Eucharist. smh

Romans 5:12
We can assume that all have sinned. But in what way are we convicted in sin? That's really the question... We're deemed righteous in Christ 1 Corinthians 1:30

The judgement is in place for satan John 16:11. Satan is the source of sin and has become father of the human race John 8:44 because of Adam selling our birthright ( in effect.)

The only way to be freed from sin is to believe in Christ, the Son of God. John 16:9 Believe in Him, in His righteousness to us, then we're justified in Him Romans 3:24, Romans 4:25

If we don't repent of the sin that is in Adam and believe into Christ, the Son of God, we will remain in sin and share the judgment of Satan (as the father of the fallen race) for eternity Matthew 25:41.

These are the main points that the Holy Spirit uses to convict humanity.

Call it what you like, penal substitution,whatever ... I call Him my Kinsman Redeemer (read Boaz & Ruth for the example) ....

As a redeemer He is like us but is also God. Ruth was a Moabite that was redeemed into the family of God thru Naomi.
Christ is our redeemer. He gave Himself up for us, so as to impart life to us.
That God needed a lamb to cover us is just a fact from the beginning, we're not told why. I guess just to hide our nakedness.
I know this may seem too simple for some peeps but He had to sacrifice Himself to separate and sanctify the church to present the body to Himself, having been severed in the past. Because we were dead Ephesians 2:1 , belonging to another family, the family of satan's and not of God's family (a Moabite in that sense)

He is the Redeemer ( as opposed to the penal substitution belief ) for the simple fact that it demands penalty for Christians when plainly it is just satan's family that is in jeopardy. What the Traditionalists call perdition doesn't apply to Christians 2 John 1:8 only loss of rewards, as I've mentioned before. And He will redeem us to our final reward in Revelation 5:6, and as God the final redeemer in Revelation 22:1

His work as redeemer

John 6:35
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

His flesh is life. As the lamb of God He feeds and redeems, before the fall as the tree of life he was just for feeding on. Then in dying for us He gave His flesh so that we could have life. Blood is also necessary for redemption. Separating the flesh and blood John 6:54 clearly means His death.

John 6:47
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.
John 1:12
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

John 6:56 is the resurrected life of those who believe in Him.
By eating we are taking Him in as nourishment for the new creation for the new way of life.

John 14:19-20
Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

John 6:62 involves His ascension which followed redemption as proof His work had been completed.

Hebrews 1:3b
... After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Wherefore He is the life-giving spirit John 6:63 who gives life and speaks in spirit and life.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

As the life-giving spirit He is the life supply. Receiving (believing) Him as the crucified and resurrected savior, the lifegiving Spirit comes into us to impart eternal life. We receive (believe) the Lord Jesus but we get the Holy Spirit who gives us life.

Communion in the way of breaking of bread was the way in which the earliest church recognized Jesus, as exemplified by the disciples at Emmuas.

NONE of those biblical references is about Communion.

NONE of those biblical references indicate that the word "is" means "is not actually."

NONE of those biblical references indicates that one's own understanding of physics "trumps" what Jesus says or God inspires in His Scripture.; if it can't be according to what one thinks Physics says then it can't be true and the Bible has to be severely, radically SPUN so that it agrees with what one thinks he/she learned in high school science class. None of them teach that.



- Josiah

 

[Cassia]

NONE of those biblical references is about Communion.

NONE of those biblical references indicate that the word "is" means "is not actually."

NONE of those biblical references indicates that one's own understanding of physics "trumps" what Jesus says or God inspires in His Scripture.; if it can't be according to what one thinks Physics says then it can't be true and the Bible has to be severely, radically SPUN so that it agrees with what one thinks he/she learned in high school science class. None of them teach that.



- Josiah

So it doesn't conform to your answer that takes into consideration the whole bible? Riiiight...

 

[Josiah]

So it doesn't conform to your answer that takes into consideration the whole bible? Riiiight...

IMO, throughout the Bible, "is" does mean "is" and not "is not actually." IMO, throughout the Bible, the teaching is that GOD is right/true/correct.... and is NOT subject to one's own understanding of what can and can't be according to what they remember from their high school science class.

You referenced a few Scriptures - NONE of them about Communion, NONE of them taught that in the Bible the meaning of "is" is "not actually true," NONE of them taught that God is to be corrected by one's understanding of science. Indeed, ALL our Christian beliefs are founded on God being correct, all founded on the meaning of "is" being "is". Jesus IS risen. Jesus IS the Savior. Etc, etc., etc., etc.



.

 

[Lamb]

So it doesn't conform to your answer that takes into consideration the whole bible? Riiiight...

The whole bible is about the Savior Jesus Christ and we receive Him in communion. The forgiveness of sins received are not received BECAUSE we eat His body and drink His blood but because He is present in the bread and wine and He is our redeemer.

 

[Cassia]

... NONE of them taught that God is to be corrected by one's understanding of science. ....

Huh?