Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

[cerette]

This is why I am confused when you say LITERALLY the body and blood... but the body consitsts of cartilages, bones, nerves , blood vessels, eyes, nose, etc

are you eating the whole body like that LITERALLY ?

We take Jesus' words literally. It is His body, it is His blood. But it is also a huge mystery and miracle, which can't be explained beyond what the Bible says (and it pretty much leaves it at "It is"). It is the body and blood, but we are not cannibals, and we can't see His body & blood in the bread and wine with our eyes. We just know and believe it is, because He said so. I understand that it may sound confusing and odd...but remember, God is all-powerful and can make this possible.

 

[DaRev]

How would Lutheranism deal with the I AM's of Jesus? Such as "I AM the door", "I AM the true vine", etc.

According to the context in which they are written, just like we deal with the rest of Scripture.

 

[jdbrown]

According to the context in which they are written, just like we deal with the rest of Scripture.

So, in the case of the I AM's, Jesus is making an analogy (symbol) to a door or a vine, and in the case of the bread and the wine he is making an identity (reality) with his body and blood?

 

[alexnbethmom]

So, in the case of the I AM's, Jesus is making an analogy (symbol) to a door or a vine, and in the case of the bread and the wine he is making an identity (reality) with his body and blood?

yes.

 

[jdbrown]

yes.

I agree. Jesus does seem to be making an identity, in some sense, between his body and blood and the bread and wine. Now, if there was only a way to think about this without feeling like a monophysite, I would certainly feel better about it.

 

[Tangible]

So, in the case of the I AM's, Jesus is making an analogy (symbol) to a door or a vine, and in the case of the bread and the wine he is making an identity (reality) with his body and blood?

Not necessarily. Jesus does not say that he is A door, A vine, etc. He says that he is THE Door - the only access to the Father, and THE Vine - into which we must be grafted.

We must be cautious when assigning symbolic meanings to things spoken by Jesus, or else we may end up with only symbolic forgiveness of sins, symbolic justification, etc.

 

[alexnbethmom]

Not necessarily. Jesus does not say that he is A door, A vine, etc. He says that he is THE Door - the only access to the Father, and THE Vine - into which we must be grafted.

We must be cautious when assigning symbolic meanings to things spoken by Jesus, or else we may end up with only symbolic forgiveness of sins, symbolic justification, etc.

of course what tangible says is true - my answer was too simplistic. my tooth hurts and i'm annoyed very easily.

 

[DaRev]

So, in the case of the I AM's, Jesus is making an analogy (symbol) to a door or a vine, and in the case of the bread and the wine he is making an identity (reality) with his body and blood?

Exactly. The Scriptures MUST be read in the context in which they are given. It is very clear from the texts that the "I am" statements of Christ are allegorical, all pointing to Him as the great "I AM". In John 6, He starts out with "I am the bread of life" which points to His physical presence on earth as coming from heaven. He then changes the subject and begins talking about eating and drinking His flesh and blood. The subject changes and so does the context. One needs to be careful when reading the Scriptures that they don't pull things out of context. It's rather easy to do.

 

[Studeclunker]

How interesting that no one brought up the language (greek) issue. One of the reasons the Apostles used Greek was the rather extreme clairity of the language. For instance, there are five words for Love. Likewise there are several words that mean "is", actual (physical, corporal, etc...), representative, etc... In the case of the scriptures referrenced, the Apostles used the "is" that means the physical, actual, or real deal. How all this works is not explained either by Christ or the Apostles. However, the Apostle Paul states that some people in the Corinthian Church died because of not taking Communion with proper care and reverance. Obviously, this wasn't some kind of memorial service or activity. Thank Heaven the Holy Spirit is not active in the modern Church in the same way He was then! Also, Paul said that taking Communion without proper preparation would result in being guilty of Christ's body and blood. This only bolsters the idea that is means IS!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This is why I am confused when you say LITERALLY the body and blood... but the body consitsts of cartilages, bones, nerves , blood vessels, eyes, nose, etc

are you eating the whole body like that LITERALLY ?

The Bible does not explain what "bits", so I accept it as a mystery, but think that it's His whole body and whole blood, not just bits and pieces that He has provided as a means of grace for His whole Church.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

How would Lutheranism deal with the I AM's of Jesus? Such as "I AM the door", "I AM the true vine", etc.

According to the context in which they are written, just like we deal with the rest of Scripture.

So, in the case of the I AM's, Jesus is making an analogy (symbol) to a door or a vine, and in the case of the bread and the wine he is making an identity (reality) with his body and blood?

When one reads the surrounding text, there is always further, additional explanation that leads us to understand when Christ is employing an analogy.

In the case of the Eucharist, there is no further explanation; it is what it is.

 

[jdbrown]

I am a Calvinist by conviction on nearly every issue except for this one. I believe the reason the Calvinist protest so much about this issue has more to do with their anti-Roman tendencies than having a rational explanation for ignoring the words of Jesus. Anything that even hints at being close to Rome's understanding of theology is rejected. This is a dangerous and, might I add, an irrational position to take. Why are we able to freely admit that the union of the two natures is a true mystery, but we cannot accept the union of the body with bread as a true mystery? I simply refuse to ignore our Saviors words and take the sacredness out of the sacrament. As Luther said, "Let God be God".

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I am a Calvinist by conviction on nearly every issue except for this one. I believe the reason the Calvinist protest so much about this issue has more to do with their anti-Roman tendencies than having a rational explanation for ignoring the words of Jesus. Anything that even hints at being close to Rome's understanding of theology is rejected. This is a dangerous and, might I add, an irrational position to take. Why are we able to freely admit that the union of the two natures is a true mystery, but we cannot accept the union of the body with bread as a true mystery? I simply refuse to ignore our Saviors words and take the sacredness out of the sacrament. As Luther said, "Let God be God".

Well said!

 

[DaRev]

I am a Calvinist by conviction on nearly every issue except for this one. I believe the reason the Calvinist protest so much about this issue has more to do with their anti-Roman tendencies than having a rational explanation for ignoring the words of Jesus. Anything that even hints at being close to Rome's understanding of theology is rejected. This is a dangerous and, might I add, an irrational position to take. Why are we able to freely admit that the union of the two natures is a true mystery, but we cannot accept the union of the body with bread as a true mystery? I simply refuse to ignore our Saviors words and take the sacredness out of the sacrament. As Luther said, "Let God be God".

I find it interesting that you are in alignment with the word of God on this issue, but are in disagreement on the other areas that Calvinism is in error.

 

[jdbrown]

I find it interesting that you are in alignment with the word of God on this issue, but are in disagreement on the other areas that Calvinism is in error.

Must always keep the controversy going, right Rev?

"Where God builds a church, the devil builds a chapel." ~Martin Luther

 

[DaRev]

Must always keep the controversy going, right Rev?

I am called to correct where false teaching exists. Only those in error would call it controversy.

 

[swinkler]

You must start your answer with it is a mystery. Based on material sciences (which did not exist when people were killing each other over this question), we know that it does not change into body and blood. Those who say it does are wrong, because this can be measured.

 

[jdbrown]

You must start your answer with it is a mystery. Based on material sciences (which did not exist when people were killing each other over this question), we know that it does not change into body and blood. Those who say it does are wrong, because this can be measured.

I don't know of anyone, who claims a physical presence, who does not also claim it to be a mystery. Even Rome appeals to mystery with her formula of transubstantiation.