- May 19, 2018
- 11,002
- 11,749
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
A nice video by Matt Fradd about what the Early church fathers, and Christians believed when it came to the Eucharist:
Those are not opposite poles, symbolism and transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is merely an explanation of a reality, the reality that Jesus is indeed God with us. And it does work in an Aristotelian philosophic framework. When Protestants lost their cognition into Aristotle it was not a surprise they couldn't comprehend transubstantiation any longer.Methodists believe in a Real Presence, but hold it as a Mystery, not holding to either Transubstantiaton or the idea that Eucharist is "just a symbol."
Then I'd think you would be obligated to follow the early practice of the faith.As the video points out - the idea of "just symbolic" is very late.
Is that really a Methodist 'thing'? I've never heard of it before, a resurrected Jesus but without blood. That;s different.We generally say that Christ's glorified body now is FLESH AND BONE, but not FLESH AND BLOOD, due to a scripture that says "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom"
Joins into a Real Presence, but the HOW OF IT remains a mystery. We accept it....
How would you compare and contrast your belief and that of the Orthodox, who also claim to believe in the Real Presence?
So the resurrected Jesus has no blood? Just flesh and bones, but no blood? Just because somebody thinks they got some Bible verse backing them up on that? I'm not getting it.It's not a Methodist thing, Chef
It comes from some Bible verse about flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
...1 Cor 15:50
50 I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.1 Cor 15:50
I'm just saying it's really odd for anyone to think that 1 Cor 15:50 means that the resurrected Jesus has no blood but just an exsanguinated body and bone which has non-functional marrow. Especially when there is an alternate explanation that makes much more sense. And is contextually coherent.I don't know, Chevy
I have no systematic theology on Christ's resurrected body
So where did you pick it up from? It's just strange.1 Cor 15:50 has led some to conclude that the resurrected body is flesh and bone but not flesh and blood, I didn't make it up
I don't know if it's true,
They can't. Real bread and real wine. Period.... or if Oreo cookies and Pepsi can be used as elements of the Eucharist.
Jesus took bread and wine ....If they are going to be transformed into body and blood of Christ, what difference does it make what they started out as?
Spoiler Alert: They can't.or if Oreo cookies and Pepsi can be used as elements of the Eucharist
With respect, this is one thing about Protestantism that eventually drove me away from Protestantism.If they are going to be transformed into body and blood of Christ, what difference does it make what they started out as?
Well, if you can find a contemporary source for this idea that Jesus has flesh and bone but not flesh and blood I would appreciate it.Forget it.
Unwatching thread.
Forget it.
Unwatching thread.