Why do so many Christians not believe Jesus's plain words

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,550
8,436
up there
✟307,281.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Christ has a resurrected body, he is not disembodied. We believe in the resurrection of the dead. That is basic Christian dogma that is accepted on this website as true.
I do not argue that or anything in the creeds. But as Jesus clearly stated we must abandon the ways of the flesh for the spirit of God. We must overcome our self serving animal nature for the selfless ways that represent the governance of God. Is not a return to flesh counter-productive? Howis that being born again?
I can understand using flesh (bread wine) to symbolize God but not God to symbolize flesh. That is like institutions/governments of man using God to justify their deeds rather than changing themselves to suit the will of God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,651
18,544
Orlando, Florida
✟1,261,093.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
I do not argue that or anything in the creeds. But as Jesus clearly stated we must abandon the ways of the flesh for the spirit of God.We must overcome our self serving animal nature for the selfless ways that represent the governance of God. Is not a return to flesh counter-productive? I can understand using flesh (bread wine) to symbolize God but not God to symbolize flesh. That is like institutions/governments of man using God to justify their deeds rather than changing themselves to suit the will of God.

There was a religion called Manicheanism that was a kind of Christian heresy, and it sounded much as what you are talking about- matter is evil, spirit is good . And it's wrong. Christians don't consider the material world evil, and that's not what the New Testament means by "flesh".
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,550
8,436
up there
✟307,281.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
And it's wrong. Christians don't consider the material world evil, and that's not what the New Testament means by "flesh".

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,651
18,544
Orlando, Florida
✟1,261,093.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Are you defending Manichean doctrine by abusing the Scriptures?

This isn't the sort of place for this discussion. Unorthodox theology should be discussed in Controversial Theology or the World Religions sections only. God created all things good, and they are still good, even if we live in a fallen world.
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,550
8,436
up there
✟307,281.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Are you defending Manichean doctrine by abusing the Scriptures?

This isn't the sort of place for this discussion. Unorthodox theology should be discussed in Controversial Theology only.
You brought it up for whatever your motive may be, not I. I don't even know what it is, never heard of that doctrine nor have needed to in order to accuse others. But it's ok, I won't run to the mods.

I posted scriptures to back my point that Jesus taught us to be in the world but not of it. To bow to the governance of God and not the governance of man. Nothing unorthodox about Jesus' teachings.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,651
18,544
Orlando, Florida
✟1,261,093.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
You brought it up for whatever your motive may be, not I. I don't even know what it is, never heard of it nor have needed to in order to accuse others. But it's ok, I won't run to the mods.

I posted scriptures to back my point that Jesus taught us to be in the world but not of it. To bow to the governance of God and not the governance of man. Nothing unorthodox about Jesus' teachings.

The Greek word for "world", cosmos, is different from the word "Earth", ge, in its use in Scriptures, particularly the Johanine texts that have such sharp contrasts. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it imply that the created world of material things is evil in any way. Likewise, "flesh" (sarx) and "body" (soma) have different connotations as well. Bodies are not evil, whereas "flesh" refers to the corruption in humanity. It does not refer to the things that God created good.
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,550
8,436
up there
✟307,281.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Bodies are not evil, whereas "flesh" refers to the corruption in humanity. It does not refer to the things that God created good.
Agreed. Yet the self serving nature of man is a turn off to the will of God. It is a way of the flesh and that way has created the 'world' man has made in our image within God's creation. The good news of the Kingdom was we could finally escape it and it's oppressive culture man thrives upon. We could live within man's world in a way opposite to our traditional ways by following the governance of God, not the adversarial self serving governance of man, AS LONG AS we didn't rebel or try to overtake the traditional ways of man. (That's Jesus' job someday). In the meantime... they would crush us.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NeedyFollower

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,024
437
63
N Carolina
✟71,145.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Celibate
When He says "this is my body"? What is there to misinterpret?

Edit: I wish I could change the title. Maybe it's too contentious. Forgive me.
No , I do not believe that your post was contentious but knowing the very sad and bloody history of the church(es) , I know that most topics are very contentious unless we agree with one another . The wisdom from above is first pure, peaceable , gentle , easily entreated, full of mercy and good fruit , impartial and sincere .

I believe Luther held to the bread and wine literally becoming the flesh and blood of our Lord ...others in the reformation did not . And either Jesus was known to use metaphors or He was not . It is unquestionable to anyone who has reason ...and I stress reason ...that the selling of indulgences , the buying of papal offices , nepotism and the ungodliness demonstrated by the leaders of the day , did nothing to engender confidence that the scriptures were being understood correctly . ( If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...etc )
I can understand why people did not trust a priesthood to turn the bread and wine into flesh and blood , this giving them power .

So , when Jesus said "This is my body" . Was it literal ? For if it is literal , then only the loaf he broke and the loaf of which He blessed ..on that very night , was in fact His body . And the wine in the upper room , that night, was His blood . He instructs his disciples to do this in remembrance of me . What specifically was he referring to when he said to "do this. "

Do we have any other guide lines to clarify this ? Yes , fortunately we do . It was called the love feast in the early church . There was one loaf broken ...there was a meal ..there was fellowship . And deacons often took part of the broken loaf to those who by reason of infirmity , could not be in attendance .

The one loaf represented the body of christ also known as the church , being many members but part of one body . This is lost today as is most of the lessons Jesus tried to teach us .

Today it is called the flesh and blood after being blessed by a priest but it has lost it's meaning ...it is never broken ..and the body ? Hundreds of people in a line who do not even know one another nor love one another .
If you do not believe that Jesus was referring to the church as His body , when Jesus asked Saul ( prior to becoming Paul on the road to Damascus ) Why are you persecuting me ? Who was Saul persecuting ? Bread and wine or members of the body ?

It was symbolic and actually had real meaning initially although Paul had to call the corinthians out for not discerning the body of our Lord and eating in an unworthy manner . ( They did not wait on their poor brethren but were drunk and gluttonous by the time their very hungry brethren arrived . )

I gave a rather long answer but I trust that you did not write the question to be contentious but had a valid question how this could be misinterpreted .
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gregory95
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,225
4,212
Wyoming
✟123,651.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
When He says "this is my body"? What is there to misinterpret?

Edit: I wish I could change the title. Maybe it's too contentious. Forgive me.

It is misinterpreted because people would rather support a tradition than understand what Jesus was conveying in his statements.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Natsumi Lam
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,225
4,212
Wyoming
✟123,651.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yes! Jesus was a symbolic door not a literal door. Why would bread be literal flesh? Why wine be literal blood? It's silly what people believe sometimes.
Understatement.

It not only goes against sound doctrine to believe that bread and wine turn into the real flesh and blood of Christ, but it goes against reason. It is an absurd belief...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Natsumi Lam
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,651
18,544
Orlando, Florida
✟1,261,093.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
Understatement.

It not only goes against sound doctrine to believe that bread and wine turn into the real flesh and blood of Christ, but it goes against reason. It is an absurd belief...

So's the Incarnation, then. How exactly does the finite human body contain the Infinite?
 
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,225
4,212
Wyoming
✟123,651.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
So's the Incarnation, then. How exactly does the finite human body contain the Infinite?

Very different.

Eating flesh and blood (or believing you are) is out right absurd.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gregory95
Upvote 0

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,225
4,212
Wyoming
✟123,651.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Signs signify or communicate something to the worshiper's mind, they don't become what they signify or communicate. Jesus is grossly misinterpreted.

Feed on what is being communicated in the representation of the bread and wine with your faith in the object of our salvation.
 
Upvote 0

StephenDiscipleofYHWH

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2018
1,483
378
28
Ransom county
✟69,666.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
When He says "this is my body"? What is there to misinterpret?

Edit: I wish I could change the title. Maybe it's too contentious. Forgive me.
Well first it is wrong to drink blood by God's law, or eat meat with blood in it(Acts 15:19-20,27-29; Acts 21:25), so taking this into consideration we must examine what is being said a little further.
Second the Lord was present at the last supper in the flesh, how did the physical bread and wine turn into his body and blood if he was still present in the flesh?
Thrid he is now back in his spiritual form and not in the flesh(appeared to Paul in the spirit-Acts 26:16; Flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven-1 Cor 15:44,50,52-53), nowhere does it say that his spiritual form turns back into flesh whenever someone partakes of the last supper. That is why the act of participating in it is said to be a showing of Christ's death until his return and not him physically returning in flesh and blood when they eat and drink. It is what we do in remembrance of him, not what we do for him to return in the flesh so we can eat him.

1 Cor 11:
24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Also not everyone is supposed to/can take part in this, as only those who are worthy can eat and drink, if anyone does so unworthily then they eat and drink their own damnation.
1 Cor 11:
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Partaking in the act of remembrance for the Lord, which is the Lord's supper, is not a requirement but something that can be done. It is not a law or requirement that we all do so but if we are worthy then we should want to, but only if we are worthy.


So scripture makes it quite clear that the Lord was speaking symbolically of his death and the blood he would shed for all mankind when he said to eat of that bread and drink of that cup.

Matt 26:
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

His blood had not yet been shed for many for the remission of sins, how could his blood that was shed for remission already be present in the cup if he had not yet sprinkled it on the Altar in heaven to atone for us?
Hebrews 6:
19Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; 20Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 9:
24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hebrews 12:24
24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


His blood was in his body not in the cup. He had not yet died so his blood of the New Testament could not yet be in the cup, only through the death of the Testator and with blood was the New testament and remission through Christ achieved/attained/Received.
Hebrews 9:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

When Christ said to eat of this cup and drink of this wine he spoke of his death(sacrifice), resurrection, and blood atonement(on the Altar in heaven) for all man's sins. He spoke symbolically of what must be done, and we keep the Lord's supper in remembrance of what he did. We keep it to show his death until his coming.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Gregory95
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,651
18,544
Orlando, Florida
✟1,261,093.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
Very different.

Eating flesh and blood (or believing you are) is out right absurd.

All I see is scoffing here, not faith. You also refuse to explain how it is different from the Incarnation. Was Christ not God in the flesh, or was he only appearing as a man? Was his humanity not truly joined to his divinity in his divine person?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,225
4,212
Wyoming
✟123,651.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
You give no clear demonstration why it is absurd or why is is different from the Incarnation.

All I see is scoffing here, not faith.

The incarnation isn't unethical as in eating human flesh.

Speaking of the incarnation and the hypostatic union, doesn't the idea that the bread and wine change into the real flesh and blood of Christ challenge this high doctrine? If Christ's flesh and blood can appear where Christ's body isn't really present, then we are attributing divine qualities to the human nature and this would fall into the heresy of Monophysitism - does it not?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,651
18,544
Orlando, Florida
✟1,261,093.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
The incarnation isn't unethical as in eating human flesh.

Speaking of the incarnation and the hypostatic union, doesn't the idea that the bread and wine change into the real flesh and blood of Christ challenge this high doctrine? If Christ's flesh and blood can appear where Christ's person isn't really present, then we are attributing divine qualities to the human nature and this would fall into the heresy of Monophysitism - does it not?

We do believe Christ's person is present to be received in the sacrament.

Lutherans believe some of the accidental attributes of Christ's divine nature are communicated to his human nature through the hypostatic union, and that the disciples in fact witnessed this in his transfiguration and in his resurrection. But his divine nature is still properly divine and his human nature is still properly human in their respective essential natures.

We use Aristotilian categories to describe this in our scholastic theology, but Orthodox do something similar by talking about grace being communicated to human nature, using Platonic metaphysics. I am honestly not an expert in this subject, having only studied it in some detail, I just know that I do not find modern day Reformed notions of the Supper fair very well compared to what the Church has always believed up until Zwingli decided that Christianity had to be demystified. Perhaps at one time it was different (Calvin seems to hold a higher view), but today the Supper has been mostly demystified and reduced to a "real absence" where we take and eat and try to remember Jesus- which turns the Supper into a human work, which does nothing good for ones spiritual life.

Pr. Jordan Cooper is a Lutheran theologian and has written about the doctrine of divinization from both a Lutheran and Palamite perspective so he might be useful to look into if you want to inquire more.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ing Bee

Son of Encouragement
Site Supporter
Mar 21, 2018
229
156
East Bay
✟78,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When He says "this is my body"? What is there to misinterpret?

Edit: I wish I could change the title. Maybe it's too contentious. Forgive me.

Three thought for further discussion:

1) The Jewish calendar is jam-packed with symbolic imagery intended to point to something else. Passover, which is a "remembrance" of a past even has the Jewish community eating a spotless lamb. Jesus, the Lamb of God, is not straying from his Jewish roots by reinterpreting common Jewish symbols during the Passover week celebration.

2) It's instructive how Paul discusses the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:
  1. He addresses the entire meal (the bread and wine alone is a truncated version of the Agape Feast's of the early church
  2. He first quotes the verbal accounts of Jesus' words equating the bread with his soon to be broken body and the cup with his soon-to-be spilled blood that would inaugurate the New Covenant.
  3. He then comments on the elements, referring to them as "bread" and "cup"
  4. He identifies this as a "remembrance" and a "proclamation" - both ideas are by nature symbolic a remembrance is not the thing itself and a proclamation ( of the Lord's death until he comes) is also not the thing itself but an announcement of an event yet to come.
  5. He equates "sinning against the body and blood" of Jesus with the lack of love toward the poorer members of the community who didn't come in time for the food ( not just the bread and cup).
3) As a side note for further study, Paul specifically equates "the night he was betrayed" as the time when this memorial was inaugurated. John 6 did not take place during that night. Therefore the "bread/wine" imagery used there is not connected with the Eucharist. In fact, John does not even included this episode, using foot washing instead as the focal act of mutual service after the manner of Christ. A complete read through John 6 shows a high degree of paralleling "eating" with personal trust/belief in the person and work of Jesus. At the end of the chapter, Jesus says "the Spirit gives life, the flesh is of no account". Bread sustains life. Bread from heaven sustains eternal life. But we "eat" the bread through believing Jesus, not by chewing and drinking carbohydrates.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jonaitis

Soli Deo Gloria
Jan 4, 2019
5,225
4,212
Wyoming
✟123,651.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Lutherans believe some of the attributes of Christ's divine nature are communicated to his human nature through the hypostatic union...

...but they are still properly divine and his human nature is still properly human in their respective essential natures..

Contradiction. I have nothing more to say.
 
Upvote 0