The Lord's Supper (1 Cornithians 11) [Archive]

View Full Version : The Lord's Supper (1 Cornithians 11)

Spiritus Naturae

February 7th 2004, 04:44 PM

:hi: "C'mon to the Table, everyone!"

I have always been fascinated by this particular practice and as of late, been studying the varied portions of Scripture (both OT and NT) referring to communal (nothin' to do with communism) meals.

I tend to see the Supper and its significance and meaning as having been "tainted" by Western Church "tradition". I, of course, am the first to admit that I am in no way a theological "professor". Not that I am required to be one anyway, but you know what I mean. :wink: Alot of churches tend to see the Lord's Supper as being a somber, downcast sort of "ritual" officiated by a select few, when in actuality it is a wonderous, glorious rememberance for brothers and sisters to enjoy and participate in. The Table is no longer table but "altar", which the Lord's Supper was never intended to be. The "unworthily" in 1 Corinthians 11:29 is misunderstood and misapplied by many to the point of one worrying about what goes through my mind as I sip the "welchs" and bite the "cracker" (I found myself doing this early on) but it rather refers to one's life and character over all. Do I live as Christ's example has set forth for me?

Anywho, I just thought I'd throw this on out there (I'm from Texas :smile:) and see what other members of the TWeb think of or understand from scripture, the Lord's Supper to be and signify.

The LORD bless us all,
Jonathan :innocent:

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.
-1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-34 (NASB)

ChrisChillin

February 7th 2004, 05:41 PM

Plus, the sacramental part of the Lord's Supper (the breaking of the bread and the passing of the cup) was generally celebrated as part of a larger meal taken together..

Spiritus Naturae

February 7th 2004, 05:49 PM

Plus, the sacramental part of the Lord's Supper (the breaking of the bread and the passing of the cup) was generally celebrated as part of a larger meal taken together..
:hrm: another "Jedi", I see....

Yes, it would appear to be...not just a thimble of "Welchs" (or "Juicy Juice", even better.) and a soda cracker. I see from scripture, there is more going on with the Supper than the occasion we have made it out to be. The Table is important symobolically as well as from a community standpoint, fellowship amongst believers.

Pilgrim

February 7th 2004, 06:43 PM

Spiritus Naturae

February 7th 2004, 06:52 PM

I agree that it is not an alter, after all, the sacrifice has already been made. It is a table, the Lord's Table. I often wish if could be more of a "feast" but the reality is that with 300 folks in service that would not be doable on a regular basis. (If I had my way we would celebrate the Lord's Supper every week!) However we do celebrate it as a feast on special occasions and that is very nice.

For me the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the most meaningful worship I experience. Even more so now that I'm a minster of Word and Sacrament because as we take the elements to folks or as the come forward I get to look into their eyes and know them by name and then we unite with them and all the saints of all times and places around this Table of the Lord. It really is a beautiful thing.

:thumb:

It truly is a wonderful experience...and yes, 300 things might get a lil' "wild". I, myself, being of the "House-Church" bent can begin to see the wonderous fellowship application of the Supper. I think of the Lord's Supper and reflect on the fact that someday I, and my fellow believers (including my dad, who passed 4 years ago), will indeed sit at that beauteous Table with our LORD and Saviour and all the saints, partaking of a feast most wonderful.

Spiritus Naturae

February 10th 2004, 08:13 PM

Acts 2:42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Acts 2:46 Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple,and
breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart,

In the above references do we know that this is indeed the Lord's Supper? How do we know it wasn't simply more of a fellowship meal in regards to a rememberance of Christ? Where did the "modern" form of this practice originate?

And why is no one else as interested in this as I am? :sad:

Jonathan :innocent:

Paulbarbee

February 11th 2004, 04:44 AM

Spiritus Naturae

February 21st 2004, 05:17 PM

Paulbarbee

February 24th 2004, 04:42 AM

Mayhaps, I can produce more of an interaction from the TWeb if'n (<--Texas influence) I break it down a bit further. Maybe allude to some points of interest.

The Lord's Supper

-occasion=Passover

-the last meal eaten with Jesus and His disciples

-at it's inception, it was part of a larger meal

-"supper" in the Greek 'deipnon' deipnon(I am no Greek scholar by any means so please correct me if neccessary) translates as, "dinner or perhaps the main course/meal in evening"

-this 'format', according to scripture, was never "done away with"

So all this to say why is it not practiced in the same way today? When exactly in the historical roots of Chrisitanity was it modified?

Any takers?

Jonathan :innocent:
Well, I'll try.
My pastor argued that this was discontinued because thy were getting drunk and being gluttonous when they came together and therefore this had to be fornmalized into the ceremony. This makes sense considering I Cor. 11:20-34, but I really don't see any passage where the Bible specifically says "stop eating this as a meal." Paul just says in verse 33 "So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another." This just says to "wait for one another," nothing about having to stop the full meal.

Solly

February 24th 2004, 05:30 AM

:hi: "C'mon to the Table, everyone!"

I have always been fascinated by this particular practice and as of late, been studying the varied portions of Scripture (both OT and NT) referring to communal (nothin' to do with communism) meals.

I tend to see the Supper and its significance and meaning as having been "tainted" by Western Church "tradition". I, of course, am the first to admit that I am in no way a theological "professor". Not that I am required to be one anyway, but you know what I mean. :wink: Alot of churches tend to see the Lord's Supper as being a somber, downcast sort of "ritual" officiated by a select few, when in actuality it is a wonderous, glorious rememberance for brothers and sisters to enjoy and participate in. The Table is no longer table but "altar", which the Lord's Supper was never intended to be. The "unworthily" in 1 Corinthians 11:29 is misunderstood and misapplied by many to the point of one worrying about what goes through my mind as I sip the "welchs" and bite the "cracker" (I found myself doing this early on) but it rather refers to one's life and character over all. Do I live as Christ's example has set forth for me?

Anywho, I just thought I'd throw this on out there (I'm from Texas :smile:) and see what other members of the TWeb think of or understand from scripture, the Lord's Supper to be and signify.

The LORD bless us all,
Jonathan :innocent:

Good points SN, and points which I have endeavoured to get across to the people I am called to minister the ordinance to. The "unworthily...not discerning the body" refers to our life together, as the body of Christ, which had broken down in Corinth. If we do not sit down in love, in conscious communion with each other, then we partake unworthily, forgetting that it is for the body that Christ died. While there is a personal element - examining ourselves, yet we have often forgotten the communal element: it is the communion of the saints with their Lord, so that examination involves not only our own pious feelings, but also our love for one another, our lack of forgiveness perhaps, or nonRemembrance of the needs of the others.

John Reece

February 24th 2004, 07:29 AM

Good points SN, and points which I have endeavoured to get across to the people I am called to minister the ordinance to. The "unworthily...not discerning the body" refers to our life together, as the body of Christ, which had broken down in Corinth. If we do not sit down in love, in conscious communion with each other, then we partake unworthily, forgetting that it is for the body that Christ died. While there is a personal element - examining ourselves, yet we have often forgotten the communal element: it is the communion of the saints with their Lord, so that examination involves not only our own pious feelings, but also our love for one another, our lack of forgiveness perhaps, or nonRemembrance of the needs of the others.

Yes :yes:

:thumb:

Finding things written by Solly with which I heartily agree is one of the great pleasures I enjoy on TWeb.

Spiritus Naturae

February 24th 2004, 05:54 PM

Well, I'll try.
My pastor argued that this was discontinued because thy were getting drunk and being gluttonous when they came together and therefore this had to be fornmalized into the ceremony. This makes sense considering I Cor. 11:20-34, but I really don't see any passage where the Bible specifically says "stop eating this as a meal." Paul just says in verse 33 "So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another." This just says to "wait for one another," nothing about having to stop the full meal.

I have heard that same argument, Paul. It seems that would be a misapplication of what is actually going on here. You hit the nail on the head, because nowhere does Paul condemn the meal itself but the abuses therein. He does not 'modify' the meal to the watered down ritual of today, but simply corrects those abuses. My understanding of what Paul is saying here is that somethings need to be fixed.

18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,
21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

Obviously, they were not eating together but it seems there was some 'clique'ing up going on. Some thinking they are too good to eat with the others. Many making sure they got their own and showing no concern as to whether everyone got to eat or drink. They were behaving, eating and drinking specifically, as if they had no home in which to eat! Being greedy buggers :wink: . BUT Paul in all this does not say, "Let's revamp the whole dinner idea, guys!"

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

No real mention here of it even needing to be done on a specific day of the week or how often for that matter. When did that become tradition I wonder? :hrm:

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.

Are we living 'worthily'? Do we remember our brethren? Do we understand the 'body of Christ'?

33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

Nothing about changing the format of the supper, nothing about doing away with the table and replacing it with an altar. Just the simple admonition that they are to wait for each other and don't come there thinking its an all you can eat buffet. :teeth:

:rant: "This is 'all you can eat' restaurant, not 'eat all you can'!"

Jonathan :innocent:

Spiritus Naturae

February 24th 2004, 05:57 PM

The "unworthily...not discerning the body" refers to our life together, as the body of Christ, which had broken down in Corinth. If we do not sit down in love, in conscious communion with each other, then we partake unworthily, forgetting that it is for the body that Christ died. While there is a personal element - examining ourselves, yet we have often forgotten the communal element: it is the communion of the saints with their Lord, so that examination involves not only our own pious feelings, but also our love for one another, our lack of forgiveness perhaps, or nonRemembrance of the needs of the others.

Amen, brother! :thumb:

Spiritus Naturae

March 9th 2004, 05:34 PM

I have heard that same argument, Paul. It seems that would be a misapplication of what is actually going on here. You hit the nail on the head, because nowhere does Paul condemn the meal itself but the abuses therein. He does not 'modify' the meal to the watered down ritual of today, but simply corrects those abuses. My understanding of what Paul is saying here is that somethings need to be fixed.

18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,
21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

Obviously, they were not eating together but it seems there was some 'clique'ing up going on. Some thinking they are too good to eat with the others. Many making sure they got their own and showing no concern as to whether everyone got to eat or drink. They were behaving, eating and drinking specifically, as if they had no home in which to eat! Being greedy buggers :wink: . BUT Paul in all this does not say, "Let's revamp the whole dinner idea, guys!"

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

No real mention here of it even needing to be done on a specific day of the week or how often for that matter. When did that become tradition I wonder? :hrm:

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.

Are we living 'worthily'? Do we remember our brethren? Do we understand the 'body of Christ'?

33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

Nothing about changing the format of the supper, nothing about doing away with the table and replacing it with an altar. Just the simple admonition that they are to wait for each other and don't come there thinking its an all you can eat buffet. :teeth:

:rant: "This is 'all you can eat' restaurant, not 'eat all you can'!"

Jonathan :innocent:

:thumb:

Xavier has shown me another kindness by moving this thread from Christianity to the more appropriate Ecclesiology venue. Anyone wanna cracker? :wink:

Spiritus Naturae

July 21st 2004, 10:41 AM

Thought I'd :bump: this on up as some may or may not find it of interest...and I'm bored and I love this topic.

Jonathan

Solly

July 21st 2004, 10:59 AM

I'm interested to see how my views have moved further in this direction since I first wrote here in February.

When did the Lord's supper become the Eucharist administered by a special bunch of people?

Probably
1. When they assumed it was the Real Presence, and had to be guarded. Gee I wish I had Brillioth on the Eucharist....
2. When they had to deal with those who had denied Christ during the persecutions, and came back to church afterwards wanting re-admittance.

Amazing Rando

July 21st 2004, 11:21 AM

For me the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the most meaningful worship I experience. Even more so now that I'm a minster of Word and Sacrament because as we take the elements to folks or as the come forward I get to look into their eyes and know them by name and then we unite with them and all the saints of all times and places around this Table of the Lord. It really is a beautiful thing.

I'm with ya, Pilgrim! Holy Communion (or whatever you want to call it) is to me the most moving and special part of the service. I too wish we did it every week.

I wonder- do any of you celebrate it when you're just sitting around the table enjoying a fellowship meal with a few close brothers and sisters? I've always wanted to try doing that.

Spiritus Naturae

July 21st 2004, 08:44 PM

I wonder- do any of you celebrate it when you're just sitting around the table enjoying a fellowship meal with a few close brothers and sisters? I've always wanted to try doing that.

It's awesome, Rando! With the "House-Church" here we gather together as partaking in an actual meal. We break bread, remembering the body broken for us and we drink of the cup remembering the blood spilled for us all, unworthy as we may be, but knowing and reflecting on that it was for us and for the Body as a whole...past, present and future. Then we partake of a 'potluck' type meal and just fellowship and share with one another...

It always sends me to thinking back to those first gatherings and forward to a time when we all will share together in the ultimate 'potluck' meal. :wink:

There is probably a "house-church" gathering in your area or at the very least a cell-group or home fellowship outreach within your own church or church nearby. :thumb:

tizzidale

July 21st 2004, 10:04 PM

I just wanted to recommend For the Life of the World by Alexander Schmemann. He is an Orthodox scholar and this book's focus is the Eucharist and sacramental life. He makes some good points.

I just want to take exception with Solly's supposition that the early church "came up with" (my words) the celebration of the Eucharist as practiced today. Is it not possible that the church practiced the Eucharist as it was prescribed to be practiced - that it is not some religious ritual, but an 'entering into' the joys of the Lord through the incarnation of Christ. I hate to quote early church fathers like they are going out of style, but one can find the Eucharist practiced much as it is today as early as Justin Martyr's writings (if not before). Here's St. Irenaeus:

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which flesh is nourished from the body and the blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?- even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that, ‘we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones

Maybe when I learn more I can explain the Orthodox position more effectively, but the possibility that the church had to wait 1500 years before we discovered the truth about the Eucharist is just preposterous.

rusty

Solly

July 22nd 2004, 04:48 AM

"When the Lord says, Except ye eat...drink...etc....it is therefore a figure, teaching that we participate in the passion of the Lord, and we must sweetly and passionately treasure up in our memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us."
Augustine, quoted in Macbride, Lectures on the Articles, p478.

It didn't have to wait 1500 years.

"The language of the early fathers is free, inexact, and rhetorical [on this matter] as there was no controvery. It is therefore necessary to take their statements with care because of the tendecny of oriental symbolism."
Griffith-Thomas, Principles of Theology, p394

"Ignatius stands alone in using the Lord'sSupper against the Docetæ as a proof of the reality of our Lord's body, but to show that we cannot take him literally the following words will suffice: 'Renew yourself in faith, which is the Body of Christ, and in love, which is the blood. [Ep Trall cp VIII'"
Ibid, p 396.

tizzidale

July 22nd 2004, 09:31 AM

Solly,

I respect your position, but I do wonder about why you have selectively quoted St. Augustine. Here's some more quotes from him:

AUGUSTINE:
"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

tizzidale

July 22nd 2004, 09:43 AM

I'd like to add that in the Real Presence thread, I posted a good explanation concerning the Orthodox view of the Eucharist - which, from what I'm reading, is very similar to the position taken by St. Augustine. It is essentially that there need be no distinction between symbol and real. Here's a quote from Fr. Hopko:

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection. On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term "symbols" for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a "mystery" and the sacrifice of the liturgy a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice." These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.
So, I'm not surprised to find the word symbol used by the Early Fathers in reference to the Eucharist, but I am surprised to learn that to them (and to the Orthodox Church) this was not in opposition to reality.

Fr. Hopko:
The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life" (Jn 6:34, 41).

Solly

July 22nd 2004, 10:55 AM

I posted it as quoted by the author; unfortunatley I don't have a ref to Augustine's works. However, this

In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us.

raises an interesting point, esp as regards philosophical positions. If reality is not real unless it reveals God, then you are taking up a different position to my own and many others, that reality is real in itself, not as derivative, even though it can also reveal God.

and so, given this:
Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life"

I would have to say we are using the same words in different ways, with different content, and I do not automaticaly grant that your [ie EO] use is the genuine Biblical use, which knows nothing, AFIAC of mystical and symbolic realities, but rather analogical and revealed/disclosed realities.

Amazing Rando

July 22nd 2004, 12:17 PM

I guess some of us just haven't yet bothered to wrestle with the question of "Real Presence vs. Remembrance." For me, there are far more pressing issues to worry about right now. All I can tell you is that Holy Communion is really special to me, and whether Jesus is somehow actually present in the elements or if I'm just deeply moved by remembering what he did for us, I'm glad for the opportunity to partake.

Can anyone identify?

tizzidale

July 22nd 2004, 12:31 PM

Well, I think (and again, I'm still learning) the Orthodox position would be that all of creation was made to glorify God. When man chose rather to glorify man and the creation, it lost it's reality - it is now living in a feigned reality with no real answers. The Orthodox position would be that Man only experiences what is REAL when he is in communion with God.

This position is interesting and challenging - not because it's not understandable, but it is contrary to Western thinking and scholasticism.

Solly

July 22nd 2004, 12:36 PM

I find it interesting, as another worldview. i do not find it challenging or convincing, since it almost subjectivises reality, and degrades what is in favour of an otherwise unperceivable mystical reality. But that is the difference between the development of intellectual thought in the East and West.

Amazing Rando

July 22nd 2004, 12:51 PM

Heh heh. I think I'll stay out of this debate, since I have no strong feelings one way or another on this one. :outtie:

tizzidale

July 22nd 2004, 01:00 PM

Amanzing Rando, I should probably stay out too! But I don't think the Eastern view of the Eucharist and of reality is necessarily in opposition to the Western view. Perhaps it just takes it a step further - into its fulness (hey i have my opinions :P ).

Solly, you mention that the Orthodox teaching (which I may be heavily misrepresenting through my ignorance) "degrades what is in favour of an otherwise unperceivable mystical reality". Unperceivable how? Through our senses? Through our logic? Could man have come to the incarnation through logic? Could we have conceived of God becoming man through our senses? It is through Revelation that the mysteries of God are revealed to man. It is not because what we see and feel and taste are in opposition to the mystery, but that our eyes are blinded by our sin and self-worship. I think we could all agree that when we experience God for ourselves - the world itself takes on new (fuller?) meaning. Jesus, after all, said, "I've come to give life and to give life more abundantly." It's not that we weren't previously breathing, growing, dying - it's that we weren't living as we should have been living.

Rusty