Literal Creation vs. Literal Body and Blood

[Archivist]

This came up in a thread in a different forum, so I thought that it was worth posting here. I have been told by some on CF that I need to believe the Genesis creation account because that is what scripture says. In fact I've been told by a few that as a Christian I must believe this. Yet Scripture also tells us that the elements of Holy Communion are the body and blood of Jesus, yet many of these people who say that we have to believe in a literal reading of Genesis do not believe in a literal reading of the accounts of the Last Supper, specifically they do not believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus.

In case anyone has forgotten I am referencing, Mark 14: 22-25: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

For those who say that we must believe in a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories but deny a literal reading of the accounts of the Last Supper, how do you justify this?

 

[-57]

This came up in a thread in a different forum, so I thought that it was worth posting here. I have been told by some on CF that I need to believe the Genesis creation account because that is what scripture says. In fact I've been told by a few that as a Christian I must believe this. Yet Scripture also tells us that the elements of Holy Communion are the body and blood of Jesus, yet many of these people who say that we have to believe in a literal reading of Genesis do not believe in a literal reading of the accounts of the Last Supper, specifically they do not believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus.

In case anyone has forgotten I am referencing, Mark 14: 22-25: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

For those who say that we must believe in a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories but deny a literal reading of the accounts of the Last Supper, how do you justify this?

I don't know if anyone told you you must believe in a literal Genesis to be saved. By the same token taking communion doesn't save you. Taking communion is done in remembrance of Jesus.

The bread...and Jesus calls it bread...is then symbolically used to demonstrate His broken body.

Concerning a literal Genesis....how do groups such as the Theo-Evos explain the fall? Our sin nature? How we got it, why we got it...

The answer is this...THEY CAN'T. The T.o.E destroys what happened in the garden to Adam and Eve...as in their theology the event never happened.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I don't know if anyone told you you must believe in a literal Genesis to be saved. By the same token taking communion doesn't save you. Taking communion is done in remembrance of Jesus.

The bread...and Jesus calls it bread...is then symbolically used to demonstrate His broken body.

Concerning a literal Genesis....how do groups such as the Theo-Evos explain the fall? Our sin nature? How we got it, why we got it...

The answer is this...THEY CAN'T. The T.o.E destroys what happened in the garden to Adam and Eve...as in their theology the event never happened.

I don't necessarily subscribe to a completely literal view of the creation account in Genesis tho. It's true but it's not necessarily literal fact.

 

[-57]

I don't necessarily subscribe to a completely literal view of the creation account in Genesis tho. It's true but it's not necessarily literal fact.

I'm not buying into the re-sacrifice theology.

I did notice you skipped over the original sin theology the Theistic Evolutionist look away from.....What then really happened if Genesis is wrong?

 

[thecolorsblend]

I'm not buying into the re-sacrifice theology.

???

I did notice you skipped over the original sin theology the Theistic Evolutionist look away from.....

I admit I wasn't very interested in pursuing that line of discussion. Particularly since I've got the sneaking suspicion that you won't like my viewpoint very much (see below).

What then really happened if Genesis is wrong?

Heavens no, I never said Genesis is wrong. No part of Sacred Scripture is "wrong", as you probably already know.

I'm simply saying that when it comes to the Creation account, I have a difficult time buying into the literal days of creation as presented at the start of Genesis. Did God create the universe, the heavens and the earth? Yes. Did He create everything in the universe, the heavens and the earth? Yes. Did it happen in a literalistic reading of the creation account in Genesis? Um, not necessarily. I don't see a reason why others can't buy into a literal reading but I don't think their literal reading should foreclose a metaphorical creation account.

 

[Anthony2019]

I do not believe that the first chapters of Genesis were intended to be understood in a literal sense.

I do believe, however, the teaching on the Eucharist was meant to be understood literally rather than symbolically. In John's gospel, Jesus said “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you". A number of the very early Church Fathers were taught directly by the Apostle John, St Ignatius being one example. He was the third bishop of the church in Antioch that was founded by St Peter. He certainly appears to believe that when Jesus spoke about the bread and the wine being his flesh and blood, it was meant to be understood in a literal sense, as indeed did the majority of the early Christians.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

For those who say that we must believe in a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories but deny a literal reading of the accounts of the Last Supper, how do you justify this?

I'm an old Earth Creationist, and a Sacramentalist Christian so I might as well take a stab at this.


There are some important differences

1) Literary Genre is quite a bit different, even though both are historical narratives. In Genesis there is a lot of stuff going on that has to do with ancient iconography, tropes etc. of Far Eastern Religion etc. While the other work is a pretty straight forward ancient history writing.

2) The history of Christian dogmatic teaching. Up until the Reformation, Christians have been united around the basic idea of Holy Communion. Catholics have gone farther defining it etc. but everybody has the same basic idea.

Now much has been the same of assuming Early Earth Creationism (It is generally assumed by the Church Fathers) etc. but the catch is this was never an issue of Faith for Christians in particular. It is not mentioned as a point in the ancient creeds, catechisms etc. as an article of Faith. It has not really become one until Fundamentalist Protestants made it one during the days of the Scopes Monkey trail, and that had more to do with their specific nature of Sola Scriptura etc. (It was an Existential threat to such folks as far as their view of the Bible, the nature of truth, reality etc.)


Other Christians believe in the importance of the Bible but have much different ideas of it, Catholic articles on Scriptura Prima would probably be the best source for that topic. Or this wiki is probably a good source (just skimmed it, if it there is something screwy with it let me know somebody).

Prima scriptura - Wikipedia

 

[Archivist]

I don't know if anyone told you you must believe in a literal Genesis to be saved.

I thought I said that they had--so sorry if I wasn't clear.

By the same token taking communion doesn't save you. Taking communion is done in remembrance of Jesus.

Don't believe that I said anything about Holy Communion saving anyone. That isn't the topic of this thread.

The bread...and Jesus calls it bread...is then symbolically used to demonstrate His broken body.

That isn't what Jesus said. He specifically said “Take it; this is my body.” Where did He say "This is my bread?"

Concerning a literal Genesis....how do groups such as the Theo-Evos explain the fall? Our sin nature? How we got it, why we got it...
The answer is this...THEY CAN'T. The T.o.E destroys what happened in the garden to Adam and Eve...as in their theology the event never happened.

Like many Christians, I read Genesis as an allegory.

 

[Timtofly]

I thought I said that they had--so sorry if I wasn't clear.



Don't believe that I said anything about Holy Communion saving anyone. That isn't the topic of this thread.



That isn't what Jesus said. He specifically said “Take it; this is my body.” Where did He say "This is my bread?"


Like many Christians, I read Genesis as an allegory.

So you say, "Neither can be literal, unless I say so"?

Seems to me, the proper stance would be to say, both are literal, I just do not believe them to be. There is no "vs" point to the conversation. Their is a difference in belief or opinion. Thank God, God does not cater to human interpretation, belief, opinion, doctrine, creed, or theology. Can you imagine over 100 billion versions of the Bible?

 

[Archivist]

So you say, "Neither can be literal, unless I say so"?

Why would I say that when I believe the bread and wine is the body and blood?

Seems to me, the proper stance would be to say, both are literal, I just do not believe them to be. There is no "vs" point to the conversation. Their is a difference in belief or opinion. Thank God, God does not cater to human interpretation, belief, opinion, doctrine, creed, or theology. Can you imagine over 100 billion versions of the Bible?

And why would I say that when I don’t believe Genesis to be literal?

 

[Timtofly]

Why would I say that when I believe the bread and wine is the body and blood?

And why would I say that when I don’t believe Genesis to be literal?

Your belief does not define the Bible. It only points out your understanding.

 

[Archivist]

Your belief does not define the Bible. It only points out your understanding.

And that is true for all of us.

 

[coffee4u]

This came up in a thread in a different forum, so I thought that it was worth posting here. I have been told by some on CF that I need to believe the Genesis creation account because that is what scripture says. In fact I've been told by a few that as a Christian I must believe this. Yet Scripture also tells us that the elements of Holy Communion are the body and blood of Jesus, yet many of these people who say that we have to believe in a literal reading of Genesis do not believe in a literal reading of the accounts of the Last Supper, specifically they do not believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus.

In case anyone has forgotten I am referencing, Mark 14: 22-25: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

For those who say that we must believe in a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories but deny a literal reading of the accounts of the Last Supper, how do you justify this?

I have never said you must believe in a literal Genesis to be saved but to believe otherwise is missing out on the beauty of God's whole picture and I also believe it can lead some people down a path of unbelief. If you can't trust Genesis on creation, what about the global flood? Can Genesis be trusted on that? If that entire book of the Bible is wrong then I guess all other mentions to Genesis are not trustworthy either. What about the rest of the Bible? I've seen people on here who believe in Evolution say the Bible isn't even God's word to us. Miracles don't pass muster with science, they can't be observed, tested or taken apart. They simply are.
The second thing about Genesis is that all other scripture supports a literal interpretation. Evolution comes from outside of the Bible. It's a completely man-made idea.

As to communion that is a completely different matter. In Genesis God recorded how he created the world. It is written in a factual literal way. When Jesus is talking he is talking spiritually.
"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
Jesus was literally sitting there with them and picked up some bread off the table, they could all see it wasn't his actual body but bread in his hands. His body was still very much intact.
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,”
Same for the wine they saw Jesus poor wine and they drank wine, not blood.

There is also the issue that God strictly forbids drinking blood.
Acts 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.

The body and blood is symbolic here the same way when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about being born again, he used something literal then moved onto something spiritual. He was speaking of heavenly things at the last supper while offering around something earthly and literal. And it was literal bread and wine there, not human flesh and blood.
12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

So no you don't have to believe in a literal Genesis but I believe you will be poorer for not doing so. It answers all the questions. It shows you the shadow of the coming perfect New heavens and New World, it shows you where sin comes from and why a perfect man was the only acceptable saviour. If you believe in evolution you are left with a ton of questions and no Bible verses to reconcile them with as the Bible does not support evolution in any way shape or form.

 

[Archivist]

I have never said you must believe in a literal Genesis to be saved

I never said that you had said that, but I have been told that on CF.

but to believe otherwise is missing out on the beauty of God's whole picture and I also believe it can lead some people down a path of unbelief.

Yet I know many Christians who believe in theistic evolution.

If you can't trust Genesis on creation, what about the global flood? Can Genesis be trusted on that?

I don't think there was a global flood.

What about the rest of the Bible?

But you don't believe all of the rest of the Bible. Jesus said "this is my body," but you have said that you don't believe that to be true.

I've seen people on here who believe in Evolution say the Bible isn't even God's word to us.

But I never said that, did I?

The second thing about Genesis is that all other scripture supports a literal interpretation. Evolution comes from outside of the Bible. It's a completely man-made idea.

Evolution is supported by scientific research.

As to communion that is a completely different matter.

According to you.

In Genesis God recorded how he created the world. It is written in a factual literal way.

But I believe it is written as an allegory. You are, of course, entitled to your own interpretation.

When Jesus is talking he is talking spiritually.

A great many Christians would disagree with you.

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”

Jesus was literally sitting there with them and picked up some bread off the table, they could all see it wasn't his actual body but bread in his hands. His body was still very much intact.
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,”
Same for the wine they saw Jesus poor wine and they drank wine, not blood.

So God isn't powerful enough to turn bread and wine into His body and blood?

There is also the issue that God strictly forbids drinking blood.

Acts 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.

That is speaking of the blood of animals, isn't it. Not the blood of God.

The body and blood is symbolic here the same way when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about being born again, he used something literal then moved onto something spiritual. He was speaking of heavenly things at the last supper while offering around something earthly and literal. And it was literal bread and wine there, not human flesh and blood.
12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

And, again, you are entitled to your interpretation.

So no you don't have to believe in a literal Genesis but I believe you will be poorer for not doing so. It answers all the questions. It shows you the shadow of the coming perfect New heavens and New World, it shows you where sin comes from and why a perfect man was the only acceptable saviour. If you believe in evolution you are left with a ton of questions and no Bible verses to reconcile them with as the Bible does not support evolution in any way shape or form.

I don't feel any poorer for not believing in a literal Genesis.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm not buying into the re-sacrifice theology.

Good, but nobody is talking about "re-sacrifice". The topic is the fact that Jesus says the bread and wine of His Supper is His flesh and blood.

"This is My body" means "This is My body"

Not "This represents My body".
Not "This is sorta kinda like My body."
But τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου, "This is My body"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[coffee4u]

Good, but nobody is talking about "re-sacrifice". The topic is the fact that Jesus says the bread and wine of His Supper is His flesh and blood.

"This is My body" means "This is My body"

Not "This represents My body".
Not "This is sorta kinda like My body."
But τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου, "This is My body"

-CryptoLutheran

Matthew 26:26-28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus was sitting there quite alive and handed around bread and wine, it was not his literal body and blood.
The same is recorded in Mark, Luke and John.

1 Corinthians 11:23-28

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
He didn't hand them flesh he handed them bread.
Nor does it say "The bread changed to flesh "

By saying it changes to Christ's literal body (which he doesn't even have now) you are crucifying him again.
There was only one crucifixion. One offering.
Hebrews 10:10



10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

God also tells us not to eat blood, which is exactly what the wine turning into blood would be.
Acts 15:28-29

28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.

 

[Archivist]

Matthew 26:26-28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus was sitting there quite alive and handed around bread and wine, it was not his literal body and blood.
The same is recorded in Mark, Luke and John.

1 Corinthians 11:23-28

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink thisesis cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
He didn't hand them flesh he handed them bread.
Nor does it say "The bread changed to flesh "

Jesus didn't need to say "the bread changed to flesh" did He? He said "this is my body." That is sufficient. He didn't say "This represents my body." Dittos with "this is my blood."

You are picking and choosing. God meant a literal creation according to the Genesis account, but He didn't mean a literal body and blood despite saying "this is my body" and "this is my blood."

By saying it changes to Christ's literal body (which he doesn't even have now) you are crucifying him again.
There was only one crucifixion. One offering.
Hebrews 10:10



10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Except for you no one is saying that there is a second crucifixion.

God also tells us not to eat blood, which is exactly what the wine turning into blood would be.

Acts 15:28-29

28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.

Already addressed. This references the blood of animals, not the blood of God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Matthew 26:26-28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus was sitting there quite alive and handed around bread and wine, it was not his literal body and blood.
The same is recorded in Mark, Luke and John.

Thank you, yes, He took bread and said "This is My body", He took wine and said "This is My blood". And He wasn't joking.

1 Corinthians 11:23-28

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
He didn't hand them flesh he handed them bread.
Nor does it say "The bread changed to flesh "

No, He says it's His body and His blood. He says what the bread and wine are. He's not joking.

By saying it changes to Christ's literal body (which he doesn't even have now) you are crucifying him again.
There was only one crucifixion. One offering.
Hebrews 10:10




10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

You're wrong in two ways,

1) By denying that the Risen Lord Jesus doesn't have His body, which of course He does, He's the resurrected God-Man.

2) By accusing people of recrucifying Jesus by believing what He says.

God also tells us not to eat blood, which is exactly what the wine turning into blood would be.

Acts 15:28-29

28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.

Jesus says, "Eat" and "Drink", take it up with Him. He's the Boss.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[coffee4u]

Thank you, yes, He took bread and said "This is My body", He took wine and said "This is My blood". And He wasn't joking.



No, He says it's His body and His blood. He says what the bread and wine are. He's not joking.



You're wrong in two ways,

1) By denying that the Risen Lord Jesus doesn't have His body, which of course He does, He's the resurrected God-Man.

2) By accusing people of recrucifying Jesus by believing what He says.



Jesus says, "Eat" and "Drink", take it up with Him. He's the Boss.

-CryptoLutheran

He says to eat the bread and drink the wine (symbolic) and remember his death until he comes again, not bring him down from heaven to your altar to be slain again.

 

[Archivist]

He says to eat the bread and drink the wine (symbolic) and remember his death until he comes again, not bring him down from heaven to your altar to be slain again.

No, He said “this is my body” and “this is my blood” (not symbolic).