Why would a Christian deny the body and blood?

[Bob Carabbio]

Either stay on topic or stick to the banjo.

It is the topic, y'all. You say Jesus said ONE thing, and you feel the need to be obedient to what He said, but he also said to ARM YOURSELF, and that's not important.

 

[tz620q]

It is the topic, y'all. You say Jesus said ONE thing, and you feel the need to be obedient to what He said, but he also said to ARM YOURSELF, and that's not important.

Bob,
I think some commands from Jesus are situational and some are imperative. In Luke, the command to arm yourself is situational and following the narrative, we see that Jesus, while saying to them that two swords were enough, did not stop them from using them; but healed the wounded and stopped further violence. The command to love God with all our hearts is an imperative that should be followed ceaselessly. The command to eat his body is somewhere in between these two extremes. Obviously taking communion ceaselessly would lead us to being fat and lazy. Other than that extreme, I do not see any limitation on Jesus' command and he never, even when confronted with his disciples walking away because of this command, modified or clarified it as anything other than an imperative.
Let's look at some of the context of John 6. It says that the crowds followed because they had been fed the day before and were hungry; but Jesus replies to them:
John 6:27 "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

So what is this food that endures to eternal life? Well we know that it will be given to us by Jesus. We also know that the Father has placed his seal of approval on it. This is sacrificial language. In the temple, the person would bring an unblemished lamb to be inspected by the priests. They would put their seal of approval on the animal as a sacrifice for the person. Jesus is saying that He is the sacrifice and that He is the one that God has placed his seal upon. Doesn't this lead to Jesus being the food that endures to eternal life?

In John 6:33, we read, "For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” How many times do we read that Jesus came down from heaven and is the life of the world?

Jesus forcefully clarifies this point in John 6:51-58 when he says, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

It seems pretty obvious here that Jesus, the Lamb of God, is saying that His flesh is the bread from heaven that will give eternal life. This was his teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum. I doubt this small town synagogue could hold 5000 or however many followed him to Capernaum. So I see a break in time when the disciples pondered this and grumbled about what it meant. Jesus answered their grumbling in John 61-63, "Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life."

He first admonishes them for their lack of belief in what he has said before and remarks that if they think His giving His body as food is unbelievable how are they to believe that He is God and can go back to Heaven. But what happened right after Jesus ascended to Heaven, He sent the Holy Spirit to lead them to eternal life. This refers back to John 3 and talks about Spirit and flesh in that context. It does not somehow negate what Jesus has so forcefully commanded in John 6 before this. To read it otherwise is to place scripture against scripture.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What are your thoughts?

That Communion is exactly what Jesus SAID it was - a memorial, and a remembrance of HIM. the Catholic Transubstantiation theology is TOTALLY FALSE. The Lutheran version is closer to the truth (Jesus' SPIRITUAL PRESENCE), and HIS BODY and BLOOD on earth then and NOW is US - Born again Christians who ARE his body, and his blood(life). We NEED to discern His Body, so that we properly Minister to IT here and NOW.

Protestants take their Communion Biblically. Catholics, with their "Eucharist" have invented their OWN false theology about it.

 

[tz620q]

That Communion is exactly what Jesus SAID it was - a memorial, and a remembrance of HIM. the Catholic Transubstantiation theology is TOTALLY FALSE. The Lutheran version is closer to the truth (Jesus' SPIRITUAL PRESENCE), and HIS BODY and BLOOD on earth then and NOW is US - Born again Christians who ARE his body, and his blood(life). We NEED to discern His Body, so that we properly Minister to IT here and NOW.

Protestants take their Communion Biblically. Catholics, with their "Eucharist" have invented their OWN false theology about it.

You seem to have a strong bias against Catholicism because Catholics and Lutherans see Communion with much closer agreement than either of us have to your opinion. Yet you yell that Catholic theology is false, while saying that Lutherans are closer to the truth (your truth, I suppose, since you don't agree with the Lutherans either). Lutheran theology of communion is that there is a real, physical presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the communion wafer. I have laid out biblical proof of the Catholic, which is the historical, position.

Just like any new scientific theory, you will need to supply better proof of your counterclaim than your opinion. Perhaps you can start with a proof that Jesus meant Communion to be solely a memorial, symbolic ritual, devoid of any true meaning or significance except for us to remember his sacrifice (truly a strange and empty thing, since noone on Earth today was alive at that time to see and remember it and the ones that were there passed on a theology of communion that meant much more than purely a memorial service).

 

[Bob Carabbio]

you will need to supply better proof of your counterclaim than your opinion.

The forum rules here prevent me from making further comment.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

That Communion is exactly what Jesus SAID it was - a memorial, and a remembrance of HIM. the Catholic Transubstantiation theology is TOTALLY FALSE. The Lutheran version is closer to the truth (Jesus' SPIRITUAL PRESENCE), and HIS BODY and BLOOD on earth then and NOW is US - Born again Christians who ARE his body, and his blood(life). We NEED to discern His Body, so that we properly Minister to IT here and NOW.

Protestants take their Communion Biblically. Catholics, with their "Eucharist" have invented their OWN false theology about it.

Uhhhh... You do NOT have any understanding of Lutheran doctrine regarding the Lord's Supper

The Augsburg Confession states in Article X: Of the Lord's Supper.
1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

While the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord rejects Sacramentarianism (what you are proposing):
5] Afterwards, when they were forced by Christ's words to confess that the body of Christ is present in the Supper, they still understood and declared it in no other way than spiritually [only of a spiritual presence], that is, of partaking through faith of His power, efficacy, and benefits, because [they say] through the Spirit of Christ, who is everywhere, our bodies, in which the Spirit of Christ dwells here upon earth, are united with the body of Christ, which is in heaven.

6] The consequence was that many great men were deceived by these fine, plausible words, when they alleged and boasted that they were of no other opinion than that the Lord Christ is present in His [Holy] Supper truly, essentially, and as one alive; but they understand this according to His divine nature alone, and not of His body and blood, which, they say, are now in heaven, and nowhere else, and that He gives us with the bread and wine His true body and blood to eat, to partake of them spiritually through faith, but not bodily with the mouth.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Uhhhh... You do NOT have any understanding of Lutheran doctrine regarding the Lord's Supper.
---
to partake of them spiritually through faith, but not bodily with the mouth.

Which is exactly what I said. So apparently I DO have "understanding".

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Which is exactly what I said. So apparently I DO have "understanding".

The Lutherans accuse those who teach that view as deception. FYI I'm a former Lutheran elder.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The Lutherans accuse those who teach that view as deception. FYI I'm a former Lutheran elder.

Which is exactly what I said. So apparently I DO have "understanding".

Hi Bob,

The big "Lutheran" concern has always been an attempt to use human reason to explain and quantify a spiritual/supernatural mystery. Transubstantiation was the result of using the the "pagan" logic of Aristotle to explain these mysteries in an extra-Biblical context. Scripture speaks of the Eucharist as being both Christ's body and blood and Bread and Wine at the same time. So, one might conclude that the Lutheran position is then "Consubstantiation", however that too tries to define and quantify, and is therefore incomplete in it's attempt to explain the nature of the Eucharist.

Luther, at no time, ever stated that despite the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation affected the validity and efficacy of the Catholic Eucharist. In fact, it is abundantly clear to him that the Catholic doctrine was preferable to that of the reformed protestants that either denied the real presence or as the Methoidst did/do claim only a "supernatural or spiritual presence". Luther wrote that 'I would rather drink Christ's blood with the Pope than wine with Zwingli'. (exact working may be off a bit, but you get the picture).

From the Small Catechism:

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
​

From the Large Catechism; The Sacrament of the Altar: (spelling is old German)

"das Sacrament des Altars ... ist der ware leib und blut des HERRN Christi ynn und unter dem brod und wein..." "it is the body and blood of Christ in, with and under the bread and wine".
​

Based on this, one might be more inclined to say that it is 100% Christ's very body and blood and 100% bread and wine; but that too would be an attempt to over define what is truly a Divine Mystery.

As such, most Lutherans continue to elevate the host and the cup at the consecration, and many turn from the alter towards the congregation and present it to the congregation often with the words... "Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world". Such is why the the remnants of consecrated bread and wine are consumed either immediately after the distribution by the Pastor and Assistant(s) at the altar or in the Sacristy immediately following service, or reserved for later use. While rare, the odd Lutheran Church will have a Tabernacle. Rare, in that the majority of Lutheranism hold that the adoration of the elements of the sacrament outside of the context of the Mass is not spoken of in Scripture; but the command of our Lord to "Take and eat"; "Take and Drink you all of it" seems abundantly clear.

I hope this helps.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hi Bob,

The big "Lutheran" concern has always been an attempt to use human reason to explain and quantify a spiritual/supernatural mystery. Transubstantiation was the result of using the the "pagan" logic of Aristotle to explain these mysteries in an extra-Biblical context. Scripture speaks of the Eucharist as being both Christ's body and blood and Bread and Wine at the same time. So, one might conclude that the Lutheran position is then "Consubstantiation", however that too tries to define and quantify, and is therefore incomplete in it's attempt to explain the nature of the Eucharist.

Luther, at no time, ever stated that despite the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation affected the validity and efficacy of the Catholic Eucharist. In fact, it is abundantly clear to him that the Catholic doctrine was preferable to that of the reformed protestants that either denied the real presence or as the Methoidst did/do claim only a "supernatural or spiritual presence". Luther wrote that 'I would rather drink Christ's blood with the Pope than wine with Zwingli'. (exact working may be off a bit, but you get the picture).

From the Small Catechism:

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
​

From the Large Catechism; The Sacrament of the Altar: (spelling is old German)

"das Sacrament des Altars ... ist der ware leib und blut des HERRN Christi ynn und unter dem brod und wein..." "it is the body and blood of Christ in, with and under the bread and wine".
​

Based on this, one might be more inclined to say that it is 100% Christ's very body and blood and 100% bread and wine; but that too would be an attempt to over define what is truly a Divine Mystery.

As such, most Lutherans continue to elevate the host and the cup at the consecration, and many turn from the alter towards the congregation and present it to the congregation often with the words... "Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world". Such is why the the remnants of consecrated bread and wine are consumed either immediately after the distribution by the Pastor and Assistant(s) at the altar or in the Sacristy immediately following service, or reserved for later use. While rare, the odd Lutheran Church will have a Tabernacle. Rare, in that the majority of Lutheranism hold that the adoration of the elements of the sacrament outside of the context of the Mass is not spoken of in Scripture; but the command of our Lord to "Take and eat"; "Take and Drink you all of it" seems abundantly clear.

I hope this helps.

Actually, I would, for a large variety of reasons, rather drink wine with Zwingli, that with Luther or the Pope.