Jesus Body and Blood

Albion · May 6, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
LOL. Good. Same here. Crystal clear for me. So we're both correct or neither of us knows what he's talking about.

Weeelllllll, you're still refuting Transubstantiation even though that's not the topic.

Zao is life · May 6, 2020

Albion said:
Oh, oh. It looks like the polite exchange of ideas is ending.

Whatever I believe, you believe is heresy. (I believe that whoever believes what I believe is declared a heretic by "The" Church?). So I don't take it up personally, because I don't believe that claim. So my mention of heresy is not against you or any individual, but against the doctrine you believe. I make a distinction between the individual who believes something and the thing they believe. Many a wonderful Jewish person I've met who will contradict anything you or I say about Christ or what the New Covenant is about which is written in Jer 31:31-33. I don't follow them in their heresy, but I don't pull my punches regarding the doctrine, while I make a distinction between the person and what the person believes.

Zao is life · May 6, 2020

Albion said:
Weeelllllll, you're still refuting Transubstantiation even though that's not the topic.

The topic in the OP is related to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and we've both already finished making it obvious what we believe and that we don't agree at all. So you have the last word (if you want to answer this post) and I will not answer you, because this isn't CNN, and we don't have to kill the subject by talking it dead and then dissect the carcass by talking about it even more.

Albion · May 6, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
The topic in the OP is related to the doctrine of Transubstantiation

"Related to." So also are discussions of any sacrament, OT Law, the priesthood, Grace, and just about anything important to the Christian faith. They all could fit that description.

However, the topic here has -- except for your repeated messages about Transubstantiation-- been about the words of Christ upon the institution of the Lord's Supper being taken as believers in the Real Presence do...or instead as Baptists and others do who think it all was merely symbolic.

Only one denomination of any significance believes in Transubstantiation, and even it did not introduce that concept until the Middle Ages.

Saint Steven · May 6, 2020

Albion said:
So your contention is that, when he was instituting this important ceremony that he then instructed his Apostles to perpetuate, Jesus deliberately let them get the wrong idea about what it meant?? Really?

The ceremony was NOT instituted in John chapter six.
I gave you the biblical evidence. No one had any idea what he was talking about.
Many disciples left him over this. Even the Twelve had no clue what it was about.
Yet you seem to think it was clear-cut and literal. Seriously?

Saint Steven said: ↑
I think the same is true here. (in a sense)

Even though Jesus presented the idea as if it was literal, it was most definitely figurative.

fhansen · May 6, 2020

Albion said:
As is the case with many statements made by the so-called Early Church Fathers, there is disagreement. This is one reason why the Roman Catholic idea of augmenting Scripture with "Tradition" is defective--the tradition is not consistent, so it isn't actually tradition.

Actually the RP is Tradition, both in the east and west, and the fact that early fathers predominately support it is only a plus-and as it should be. But having said that the Catholic church, for its part, doesn't rely on ECFs for her teachings, or believe everything they wrote. Either way I can sympathize with the struggle one might have on the matter, if Scripture must be strictly relied on to arrive at a final opinion on it.

Saint Steven · May 6, 2020

Albion said:
Contrary what you have just argued, the fact that they did this owes to him having been insistent about his words being taken literally.

Had he instead soft-peddled them and assured the Jews that they shouldn't have any mistaken worries about cannibalism because it was all just figurative speech or symbolism...they would NOT have left him as they did.

Hmm... this is an explanation of the empty tomb that I had not considered.
The Twelve took Jesus literally. - lol

Saint Steven · May 6, 2020

Albion said:
Transubstantiation (a doctrine that made its debut about a thousand years after the founding of the Christian church) is not what we have been discussing here.

What's the difference?

Saint Steven · May 6, 2020

Lost4words said:
You cherry pick to suit your disbelief in the real body and blood as celebrated in the Eucharist.

What?
Do you think we are celebrating crackers and grape juice? - lol
That's ridiculous.

Albion · May 6, 2020

Saint Steven said:
The ceremony was NOT instituted in John chapter six.

I agree with that, but the counter-argument takes in other times in Christ's life when he, allegedly, was speaking in figurative language. So if that is a clue to his meaning at the Last Supper, so also would be what he explained in John 6. And I was not the one who brought up John 6.

No one had any idea what he was talking about.

I disagree with that characterization. What is correct is that they didn't want to hear it. That was because it seemed that Jesus was going against well-known Jewish religious principles about eating blood, etc.

Yet you seem to think it was clear-cut and literal. Seriously?

Why not? The fact that listeners didn't "get it" is not evidence of his words being only figurative. And if he had meant all that he said only in a figurative or symbolic way, it would have been easy for him to have convinced them of his teaching. They were willing to accept that.

But he did not do this. Instead, he continued to insist that he meant what he was saying, even though doing that made them take it literally, not figuratively, and then leave him.

Saint Steven · May 6, 2020

Albion said:
I agree with that, but the counter-argument takes in other times in Christ's life when he, allegedly, was speaking in figurative language. So if that is a clue to his meaning at the Last Supper, so also would be what he explained in John 6. And I was not the one who brought up John 6.

I disagree with that characterization. What is correct is that they didn't want to hear it. That was because it seemed that Jesus was going against well-known Jewish religious principles about eating blood, etc.

You agree... then you disagree. Make up your mind.

Saint Steven
The ceremony was NOT instituted in John chapter six.
No one had any idea what he was talking about.

Albion said:
Why not? The fact that listeners didn't "get it" is not evidence of his words being only figurative. And if he had meant all that he said only in a figurative or symbolic way, it would have been easy for him to have convinced them of his teaching. They were willing to accept that.

But he did not do this. Instead, he continued to insist that he meant what he was saying, even though doing that made them take it literally, not figuratively, and then leave him.

A literal reading of John chapter six shows Jesus commanding to be cannibalized.
There is no connection there made with the ceremony instituted at the Last Supper.

Zao is life · May 6, 2020

WanderedHome said:
Orthodox Christians traditionally would not have said "Transsubstantion" because that is a Western, scholastic invention to attempt to specifically define something that is a Mystery of the faith. This is not just the Catholics who do this, but Protestants as well, which is evident from the fact that this debate even exists.

Orthodox do not prefer to dissect every aspect of God and the faith (which ends up "killing" it, in a sense) but are content to allow the Mystery to exist as they glorify God in wonderment. The scholastic debate is seen by Orthodox as a prideful arrogance that deceives people to think God's essence can be grasped and brought down to the level of human reason.

It is obvious to anyone who approaches the Chalice that the contents are still in the form of bread and wine, according to all the senses, but we believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ, which is the fulfillment of the Passover. We are not cannibalists, of course, but that was actually an accusation in the 1st century by the unbelieving pagans and heretical gnostics who denied that Christ was present... because we spoke of eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ.

However, probably due to the Western debate over "Real Presence," the word 'spiritual' has become opposed to reality. "Real" vs. "not real"... As if the spiritual is not true reality. "Literal" on the other hand, has been limited to the physical world we can experience around us. The fact is,
the spiritual reality is literally the fullness of the physical reality.

Talking about killing: We're all dead, and buried, according to the literal way of interpreting things that leads to interpreting Jesus' words regarding the bread representing His body and the wine representing His blood, literally:

Rom 6:3-5 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:"

So are we all ghosts running around, because we're already dead and buried, according to the literal way of interpreting the teaching of Jesus and His apostles?

Of course Jesus is present in the sacrament:

Matt 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Lev 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

Luke 23:46 "And crying with a loud voice, Jesus said, Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit. And when He had said this, He breathed out the spirit."

John 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Matt 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Jesus is present in the sacrament. He's always present when the saints gather together.

WanderedHome · May 6, 2020

Sorry, Technical difficulties with my phone. I’ve got to get to my computer.

Saint Steven · May 6, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Jesus is present in the sacrament. He's always present when the saints gather together.

Perhaps "at" rather than "in"?
Jesus is present at the (ceremony of) the sacrament.

--- EDIT ---

Actually, the idea that Jesus is present "when we gather" is a misunderstanding of that passage.

Albion · May 6, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
T
Jesus is present in the sacrament. He's always present when the saints gather together.

Whether or not he is present in the sacrament has been the question here. We all agree that he's present with the saints when two or three are gathered or when they are at prayer or during the worship service we call the Lord's Supper.

It is essential that a poster keep the two different concepts separate in order to be able to contribute effectively to this thread.

K Watt · May 6, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
That's fine by me. You do that anyway in respect to what the Church teachers but alas, like with some other things "THE" Church teaches, it is not what the Bible says or what Jesus meant.

The bible came from the Church. Jesus gave us a Church, the Church gave us the New Testament.

Matt 20 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
John 20:21
As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.
Matt 18:17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Zao is life · May 6, 2020

Albion said:
Whether or not he is present in the sacrament has been the question here. We all agree that he's present with the saints when two or three are gathered or when they are at prayer or during the Lord's Supper.

It is essential that a poster keep the two different concepts separate in order to be able to contribute effectively to this thread.

Carl Emerson said:
Hi there,

My son has just finished a year of theology and is interested in my posting a couple of questions.

What scriptural support is there for believing the bread and the wine become the body and blood during the Eucharist.

Is this through the faith of the partaker or the one who officiates?

Does this mean partaking in Christ in this way is necessary for salvation?

I was answering this part of the OP:

What scriptural support is there for believing the bread and the wine become the body and blood during the Eucharist.

Albion · May 6, 2020

K Watt said:
The bible came from the Church. Jesus gave us a Church, the Church gave us the New Testament.

God gave us the books of the New Testament. Catholics and Protestants alike know that.

Several Church councils (not even Ecumenical Councils) did gather the books and pronounce these books to be inspired, but they did not create them.

Zao is life · May 6, 2020

QUOTE Carl Emerson

Hi there,

My son has just finished a year of theology and is interested in my posting a couple of questions.

What scriptural support is there for believing the bread and the wine become the body and blood during the Eucharist.

Is this through the faith of the partaker or the one who officiates?

Does this mean partaking in Christ in this way is necessary for salvation? Unquote.

nolidad · May 6, 2020

Tolworth John said:
The only scriptural support is Jesus's words at the last supper when he said this is my body and this is my blood.
Even then the bread and wine was still bread and wine indicating that what he had said was spiritual and symbolic.

Hi John:

The doctrine of transubstantiation is based on a misunderstanding of what took place at the Last Supper.

Jesus was celebrating the Passover Seder with His disciples. All the elements of the meal had some particular significance for Israel, though two had just a generic meaning.

1. The bread. Jesus took a piece of unleavened bread from a trifold napkin. He took the middle pita, which was unleavened, pierced and striped, tore it in half, put back half in the napkin and divided th erest to His disciples saying this is my body. It was defining the pita they ate at the Passover. (REmember Hebrews says that all these were types and shadows.)

2. The Wine. At the Seder, Jewish families drank from three cups of wine. The first, the cup of soorws, the second, the cup of Joy and the third, the cup of redemption. Jesus passed the third cup showing them that this cup represented His blood which He was to soon shed.

So Catholica fgo to far, th eEpiscipalians also, and churches like Baptists (just a memorial) do not understand either.

Jesus Body and Blood

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

You can call me Steve

Oldbie

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Facilitator

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Active Member

You can call me Steve

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads