The majority of fundamentalists NOT committed to a young earth?

[GodSaves]

My understanding of the 'Real Presence' is the fact that the bread is Christ's body, and the wine is Christ's blood. This does come from Scripture:

Matthew 26

26While 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."
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I 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."
30When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Mark 14

22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body."
23Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
24"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. 25"I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

Luke 22

19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.

1 Corinthians 11

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.




There are groups that take it as the Scripture is written. "This is my body; this is my blood." They don't understand it, but they take it as the Bible has it stated.

Hope that helps in understanding part of the issue.

 

[Vance]

"There are groups that take it as the Scripture is written. "This is my body; this is my blood." They don't understand it, but they take it as the Bible has it stated."

And, those who do not believe it is the actual body and blood, but only symbols of those things? Are they not taking it as the Bible has stated?

 

[GodSaves]

Sigh....

Vance I did not state that. I stated that those who believe that are taking the Bible as it says: 'This is my body.' You and whoever else can take it symbolically. The Bible says this IS my body. There are people who take that literally since it doesn't say this IS LIKE my body. I was giving an explanation for the thought, not trying to enter into a debate on this in the ORIGINS forum.

 

[Vance]

OK, but how do YOU read it? How it is written, or symbolically? I thought only the Roman Catholic Church took this literally, and this doctrine of the bread becoming actual flesh and the wine actual blood (and NOT symbolic) became such a strong doctrine that to NOT believe it was heresy.

 

[GodSaves]

Catholic Church is not the only Church to believe this. There are Lutheran Churches that believe it as well. I am not sure what the point is to find out how I feel about it in the Origin Forums. Last time I answered a question that didn't pertain to this forum I was warned.

I was brought up to believe it was symbolic only. I have been attending a Lutheran Church which believes it is real presence.

"It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ together with the bread and wine, instituted by Christ for us Christians to eat and to drink." -- Martin Luther

1 Corinthians 10
16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation[Greek: a sharing in] in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation[Greek: a sharing in] in the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 11
27So then whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in a way that is unworthy [of Him] will be guilty of [profaning and sinning against] the body and blood of the Lord.

In Mark 14:22-24 and Luke 22:19-20 Jesus says this is my body and this is my blood. His body and blood are present in the bread and wine. It is not that the wine and bread turn into His body and blood, but that they are present in the bread and wine. So in long, to answer your question that you insist that I answer for whatever reasons that you will pursue, I believe Christ's body and blood are present in the bread and wine as I believe Christ said.

 

[Andy D]

As you can see, it isnt just in Genesis that parts of the Bible may or may not be read literally. I see it as Jesus was stating to His disciples that this wine represents His blood and that the bread represents His body, as the disciples knew it wasnt physically Jesus' body. It was bread and wine that they took and Jesus asked them to take in rememberence of Him and of what He would do for them and all who accept the free gift of salvation.

For the wafer to actually become Jesus' physical body and the wine actually become His blood physically would mean (from my perspective) each time we take communion the sacrifice is being made again. It was to be done in rememberence of Him and it isnt a condition of being saved. When I buy a poppy on rememberence day in Australia, I do so to remember those who gave their lives for this country in the wars. The poppy is purely symbolic though.

It definately makes sense to be read from the perspective of this is My body broken for you as symbolic doesnt it? From the other perspective I can see how it can be taken that way as real presence now Godsaves has explained it.

Eating and drinking the Lord's supper in a profane way can happen regardless of real presence because if we desicrate a tombstone of a dead war hero then we are profaning that hero even though that tombstone is not the actual hero.

 

[GodSaves]

For clarity Lutherans believe that the wafer and wine are still the wafer and wine when partaking them. They also believe that in the wafer and in the wine are Christ's body and blood. It is a natural event and a miraculous event at the same time. It is not only symbolic but actual as well. It is not something that can be explained, but rather taken by faith.

Whether one believes it to be symbolic or Real Presence the event is about forgiveness of sins. If we go to that table actively and willing sinning and don't take this sacrament seriously then we are guilty of sinning against the blood and the body of the LORD.

 

[artybloke]

It changes how I see my beginning as being created in the image of God and special, not just some evolved being and also changes my perspective of the fall of man to the point where I am then unsure of things like when we became someone in the image of God and became different to just some animal. Maybe it doesnt change your perspective but then I have still never heard a non-literal interpretation that can explain all the important things like fall of man - sin and death entering the world, etc.

It seems to me that you haven't looked very far then. Try looking at the Orthodox views on original sin, for instance. Why would I need to know when exactly the human race became made in the image of God, or when we first became aware of the possibility of sin, and therefore responsible and "fallen?" Does it make any difference to the situation as it is now?

The literal reading makes perfect sense to me and to many other poorly and well educated Christians around the world and in 3rd world countries even so I wonder about your statement that the Gospel is simple but the rest isnt? It seems that many denominations come from differences even on the Gospel. I think it is more that the Apostles were correct in warning us all of false prophets and there are so many warnings that we know it was obviously going to be a major thing especially in the end times.

I would prefer to say the small branch of Christians who believe in communion as stated in the Bible are correct and not the billions who believe in 'Real Presence' which I am not sure what means but im guessing it is to do with the elements of communion actually being Jesus?? Explain? I dont see anything in the Bible to back up the concept of the wafer actually being Jesus' body and to me it is blasphemy to say so.

Couple of things - Christians have been disagreeing over what the Bible says for 2 millenia. Why do you think that your tiny little branch of it has it any more right than the others who've been arguing over the text for centuries? Why does your bunch think they're better than, say, the Orthodox, the Catholic, the Episcopal church, the Methodists etc etc? Because they have a special revelation from God that isn't granted to anyone else? Or vanity?

I dont see anything in the Bible to back up the concept of the wafer actually being Jesus' body

"This is my body," Interpreted "literally".

 

[ps139]

-

 

[ps139]

closed for staff review

 

[herev]

unlocked for editing purposes, please no new posts

 

[herev]

closed for further review

 

[herev]

thanks for your patience. Please keep it civil

 

[Andy D]

"This is my body," Interpreted "literally".

And yet you wont read Genesis literally.....maybe you have a Bible version that has little footnotes from God telling you that Genesis is to be read as an allegory and the Lord's supper is to be read literally. The scholars I have heard from are pretty sure that it is not to be interpreted literally when it comes to the wafer and wine...well in my church we dont use realy wine but rather grape juice and we dont use wafer, but rather bread because it is nothing to do with the bread and wine being Jesus, a miracle that it becomes Him...it is to do with the state of the heart. If we partake in an unworthy manner then we are guilty of sinning against Christ yes, but regardless of whether or not we believe in 'real presence' or not, we will be guilty if we come and have regard to iniquity in our hearts.

 

[artybloke]

And yet you wont read Genesis literally

You've never heard of irony have you?

 

[Vance]

Right, Andy, your church would say that the Catholics and Lutherans, and others, are taking that Scripture too literally, and that it should be read wholly symbolically. Two groups looking at the same Scripture and coming to different conclusions regarding the degree to which it should be taken literally. Happens all the time among the thousands of denomninations of Christianity. Pre-destination, age of baptism, debates about the nature of the Trinity, the role of the "upon this Rock" in the Apostolic authority, etc, etc. All of the differences of doctrine on all these and many, many other issues comes down to how the Scripture is to be read.

So much for the "plain and straightforward" meaning being obvious to all.

 

[Andy D]

Right, Andy, your church would say that the Catholics and Lutherans, and others, are taking that Scripture too literally, and that it should be read wholly symbolically. Two groups looking at the same Scripture and coming to different conclusions regarding the degree to which it should be taken literally. Happens all the time among the thousands of denomninations of Christianity. Pre-destination, age of baptism, debates about the nature of the Trinity, the role of the "upon this Rock" in the Apostolic authority, etc, etc. All of the differences of doctrine on all these and many, many other issues comes down to how the Scripture is to be read.

So much for the "plain and straightforward" meaning being obvious to all.

I would have to study this topic on a deeper level like so many other topics to understand why I believe it a certain way. All of us hold on to many things we were taught and havent had a chance to learn why we believe them to be true yet. I know it isnt necessary to know everything of course

Blessings

 

[Vance]

I would have to study this topic on a deeper level like so many other topics to understand why I believe it a certain way. All of us hold on to many things we were taught and havent had a chance to learn why we believe them to be true yet. I know it isnt necessary to know everything of course

Blessings

Oh, absolutely not!! There are many areas of theology that I know little or nothing about. I think the important thing is to not advocate something dogmatically until you have done the study and research, with the Spirit's guidance, for yourself.

 

[Andy D]

Oh, absolutely not!! There are many areas of theology that I know little or nothing about. I think the important thing is to not advocate something dogmatically until you have done the study and research, with the Spirit's guidance, for yourself.

But these things I have been taught, I believed for very good reason at the time but never studied deeper by myself. Just like creation. I now study it more deeply and find that I hold even more tight to YEC then before because of how Scripture backs it up. With the communion, I see absolutely NO reason why the wafer (bread) and wine (grape juice) needs to become Jesus' body and blood in order for us to do it in rememberance of Him. I remember the sacrifice He made for me but I also remember that Jesus is no longer in the grave and that He rose again and that His body was broken once for us and never has to be broken again. His blood was spilt once for us and never has to be spilt again.

Many of my brothers at church have studied the greek text and found no reason to believe that we should believe that the bread and juice actually turn into Jesus' body and blood. It tastes like bread and juice to me and im sure the disciples thought the same. When they wrote the gospels though they surely would have written how they believed it to be so of course, with the Spirit's guidance. I will ask my brothers tonight about what they have learnt on this subject and why many read the text differently? Is it a part of the text that is not clear if it should be read literally or not? Is there a thread on 'real presence'? I would like to see both sides of the argument as I always do.

Blessings

 

[Vance]

But these things I have been taught, I believed for very good reason at the time but never studied deeper by myself. Just like creation. I now study it more deeply and find that I hold even more tight to YEC then before because of how Scripture backs it up. With the communion, I see absolutely NO reason why the wafer (bread) and wine (grape juice) needs to become Jesus' body and blood in order for us to do it in rememberance of Him. I remember the sacrifice He made for me but I also remember that Jesus is no longer in the grave and that He rose again and that His body was broken once for us and never has to be broken again. His blood was spilt once for us and never has to be spilt again.

Many of my brothers at church have studied the greek text and found no reason to believe that we should believe that the bread and juice actually turn into Jesus' body and blood. It tastes like bread and juice to me and im sure the disciples thought the same. When they wrote the gospels though they surely would have written how they believed it to be so of course, with the Spirit's guidance. I will ask my brothers tonight about what they have learnt on this subject and why many read the text differently? Is it a part of the text that is not clear if it should be read literally or not? Is there a thread on 'real presence'? I would like to see both sides of the argument as I always do.

Blessings

And I agree with you fully on this point regarding the blood and body.

But, as for the study of the origins issues, since this is a subject dealing with the development of life, and the age of the earth, these necessarily involve scientific, and not just theological, issues. So, no study of these areas can be complete without a thorough review of both the scientific evidence AND the Scripture.