Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
'Sarx' is 'flesh', 'body', as in 'sarcoma' (a fleshly growth). 'Sarx' is also used in John 1:14 (and the Word became flesh). The more general word for body, 'soma', lacks the carnal reality of sarx.John 6
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh (sarka) to eat (phagein)?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat (phagete) the flesh (sarka) of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth (trogon) my flesh (sarka), and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh (sarx) is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth (trogon) my flesh (sarka), and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth (trogon) me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth (trogon) of this bread shall live for ever.
Good Day, Docd0c markus said:what makes communion symbolic? What exactly does transubstantiation mean. (i ask here because i want to be able to examine and post in light of scripture. not really debate)
Read John 15:1d0c markus said:Well in any case, we will figure luthers beef later.
As i am reading Matthew 26
MT 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
MT 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
it seems like you would take it literally until you get to v.29 where he specifically identifies the drink, it is wine, the fruit of the vine, which hadn't transformed at all. This to me indicates that it is symbolic therefore you would also have to take the body as being symbolic to be consistent. Also Jesus instructs the disciples to "drink from it all of you" which is something the catholic church (in my experience) denies its people.
This is effectively the belief of most Anglicans as well -- we believe in the Real Presence, and refuse to assert a theory as to how it is -- other than the epiclesis, the invocation of the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine to be for us the Body and Blood of Christ.prodromos said:If I may, I'd like to post something on the topic.
The Orthodox church believes that the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord but does not attempt to define how and when that happens, preferring to accept it as a mystery which is always approached with great awe.
Our understanding that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ has been passed on from the apostles and evidence of this can be found in the writings of the early Christian fathers. In scripture, it is primarily supported by John 6.
The main fight here was, even though Luther held the consubstantiation to be most true, he didn't want the Church dictating what people ought to believe, when it cannot be proven. "Real Pressence" is the important thing and how that presence is manifested will remain conjecture and at best, theory.
Even as a young student of the bible, who had never taken communion before or attended church, i view this to be symbolic. I have been reading a few articles today and i like this:prodromos said:If I may, I'd like to post something on the topic.
The Orthodox church believes that the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord but does not attempt to define how and when that happens, preferring to accept it as a mystery which is always approached with great awe. On Great Thursday (the day before Good Friday), the bread and wine of the eucharist are put aside for the whole year in case of emergencies, during which time it does not rot, go mouldy or deteriorate in any way. Any left after the year has passed is consumed by the priest the day before Great Thursday.
Our understanding that the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ has been passed on from the apostles and evidence of this can be found in the writings of the early Christian fathers. In scripture, it is primarily supported by John 6.
'Sarx' is 'flesh', 'body', as in 'sarcoma' (a fleshly growth). 'Sarx' is also used in John 1:14 (and the Word became flesh). The more general word for body, 'soma', lacks the carnal reality of sarx.
'Trogon' means to 'chew and swallow' and cannot be understood here as anything other than literal eating. It is a very literal, earthy word and it simply cannot be understood in a figurative way. St John clearly chose to use a less usual verb to indicate that our Lord Jesus meant 'eat' in a very real, sensual way. This is also indicated by the use of the word 'sarx'. The word 'trogon' only appears seven times in Holy Scripture, five of them in this passage. The others are Matt 24:38 and John 13:18, and both clearly mean eating in a literal, not figurative way.
So a straightforward analysis of the text seems clear that the Apostle John went out of his way to show that our Lord Jesus Christ was discussing a literal eating of his flesh, He just did not explain the 'how' right then and there. Up to this point it had been easy for his disciples to follow Him. After all, he performed incredible miracles and spoke wisdom with great authority which they had all witnessed personally. But now Jesus demanded more of them, He demanded faith such as that demanded of Abraham when God commanded him to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen 22:2).
Sorry if I'm sounding argumentative. I copied this from a post I had made on another forum so it has been pulled from the context of a heated debate. I would rewrite it but am stretched for time so I apologise if it seems like I want to debate this. I really only want to present the Orthodox position on what we believe and why.
John.
Wayne Jackson said:The eating and drinking are said to result in life; yet, in this very context, that life is described as being the consequence of receiving Christ words, i.e., his teaching (v. 63). It thus becomes clear that the consumption of his body and blood are the equivalent of ingesting his sacred instruction the former is a figurative expression; the latter literal.
This is further borne out of a consideration of the phrase, abides in me, and I in him (v. 56) That reciprocal relationship is said to be the result of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ. However, in a complimentary passage, elsewhere in Johns writings, the apostle equates the in me / in you relationship with keeping his commandments (1 Jn. 3:24).
http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/transubstantiationQuestion.htm
This practice of recieving the Euchrist under one species (just the bread, no wine) has happened in the history of the Catholic Chrurch. I don't have any historical reasources on hand, but this quote from Trent should help to see where they were coming from theologically... Off the top of my head, I recall this issue being a contentious one both during the reformation and with relations to the Eastern Orthodox.d0c markus said:Not at the masses i attended.. You were given the communion waffer the wine was reserved for the preists.
Also Jesus instructs the disciples to "drink from it all of you" which is something the catholic church (in my experience) denies its people.
Okay, here's another question:racer said:Here's a quick question:
I have in my hand a photo of myself. I hold it up for you guys to see and say, "This is me."
Now, is the picture of me-me? Or is it a representation of me?
Hmmm... good questions... but then again, I do not think that you are God; everliving, omnipresent, in Spirit etc etc.racer said:Here's a quick question:
I have in my hand a photo of myself. I hold it up for you guys to see and say, "This is me."
Now, is the picture of me-me? Or is it a representation of me?
puriteen18 said:Okay, here's another question:
What if you said that if we looked at the picture we would commune (have fellowship) with you?
1 Corinthians 10 (KJV)
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 10 (Young's Literal Translation)
16 The cup of the blessing that we bless -- is it not the fellowship of the blood of the Christ? the bread that we break -- is it not the fellowship of the body of the Christ?
Droobie said:Hmmm... good questions... but then again, I do not think that you are God; everliving, omnipresent, in Spirit etc etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?