Argument in Defense of the Real Presence

[spiritmech]

Hey, thanks!

It is actually something Lutherans have used as an apologetic against the Reformed "spiritual presence" doctrine for about 500 years. :hehe: However, if someone, e.g. VFarris01, denies Jesus Christ has a body today the discussion is really moot because he would not have a body to share in Holy Communion. :hehe:

But I think it is a powerful argument in any case. The Reformed typically say that Jesus' body is like any other body but it happens to be located at the right hand of the Father. Lutherans (And EO incidentally) believe there is a certain commutation of attributes between Jesus' two natures such that Jesus' omnipresence, for example, applies to his human nature. For example, Lutherans say that "God died for our sins" because we cannot divide the person of Jesus Christ, who is God. We also believe that Mary is the God-bearer, because the person Jesus Christ is God even though he has two natures. (The heart of Nestorianism is the doctrine that Mary is the Christ-bearer, but not God-bearer).

This is a good thing to bring up now because it is the season of Advent, where we look forward to Jesus' second Advent while celebrating his comming in the flesh! "He who the world could not enclose, doth in Mary's lap repose!"

Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!

That's quite interesting. I've been thinking about the resurrection of the body and it seems to me that one *has* to admit that Jesus exists currently in both bodily and spiritual form. The Holy Spirit can be present without being in the body, but Jesus can only be present if He is also present in bodily form.

Ultimately, it seems there exists a residue of dualism for those who deny the real presence. I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing anything for either side, since I grew up believing it was just a metaphor, and only recently have been thinking about communion.

Steve

[Maxentius]

That's quite interesting. I've been thinking about the resurrection of the body and it seems to me that one *has* to admit that Jesus exists currently in both bodily and spiritual form. The Holy Spirit can be present without being in the body, but Jesus can only be present if He is also present in bodily form.

Yes, because the second person of the Trinity is the only one who incarnated. The FAther is not incarnate and neither is the Spirit. Here is a link to the definition of Chalcedon:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/creeds.chalcedon.txt

Ultimately, it seems there exists a residue of dualism for those who deny the real presence. I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing anything for either side, since I grew up believing it was just a metaphor, and only recently have been thinking about communion.

I do not think you are mischaracterizing at all. But I should point out that the Reformed sometimes accuse Lutherans of being Monophysites because we believe in the commutation of attributes. There is a lengthy catalog of testimonies regarding this where the Lutheran Confessions quote early Church Fathers to back up their doctrine of the commutation of attributes.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-boc.html

(scroll to Catalog of Testimonies)

[VFarris01]

Well, I know you deny Jesus Christ has a body right now. But the histroric belief is that we cannot separate the natures because there is one person, Jesus Christ, the God-man who lives forever and who has a body today.I do not deny Jesus has a body though it is a spiritual and not a physical body. I thought we were all waiting for Jesus to return in His PHYSICAL body... if so by the doctrine of "Real Presence" He IS ALREADY HERE physically. (Remember, the bread BECOMES His flesh.)
So, in effect, if Christ is only "spiritually" present we deny the Incarnation.Not at all. JC was once among us in a physical body... now He is not... again He will be. Pray tell me how this denies His incarnation in the flesh. You even say so yourself... (the first eight words of your next quote).
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, there is a personal identity there that would exclude receiving Jesus spiritually only, because where the person Jesus Christ is, there is his humanity as well as his divinity, inseparable for eternity.... quit waving your hands around like this... it is annoying...

[spiritmech]

"I do not deny Jesus has a body though it is a spiritual and not a physical body."

That, my friend, is dualism.
Steve

[Maxentius]

"I do not deny Jesus has a body though it is a spiritual and not a physical body."

That, my friend, is dualism.
Steve

Exactly, and the whole concept of "spiritual body", which arises out of a misinterpretation of something St. Paul wrote, is basically gnostic. I also find the idea that Jesus puuts on and takes off his fully human nature like it is some kind of a coat to be rather gnostic too.

[Maxentius]

I do not deny Jesus has a body though it is a spiritual and not a physical body (snip) JC was once among us in a physical body... now He is not... again He will be. Pray tell me how this denies His incarnation in the flesh. You even say so yourself... (the first eight words of your next quote).

Because your concept of a spiritual body says that he had a material body at one point but does not have one now. In effect, Jesus Christ did not become flesh, he just put it on like a coat, then takes it off, and then he puts it on again.

I have a question, did Mary give birth to God or only to Christ? It goes right to what the Incarnation is. The Incarnation is a single, unique occurence, and Jesus is God in the flesh for eternity. Yes, flesh, bones, muscle, blood and sinew, now and forever, the same body that St. Thomas touched.

I am not waving my hand at you, I am pointing out that if you do not believe Jesus Christ has a body, and by that I mean the normal definition of body, it means that he has no flesh to share. I also happen to believe, for good reason, that this in effect denies the Incarnation. Maybe you are inconsistent, but for your doctrine to work Jesus would have to become flesh, then put it aside.

Also, sharing his flesh and blood is not the same thing as his comming in glory to judge the nations, that is a serious category error, especially since no one I know of makes such a claim besides you.

[VFarris01]

Because your concept of a spiritual body says that he had a material body at one point but does not have one now. In effect, Jesus Christ did not become flesh, he just put it on like a coat, then takes it off, and then he puts it on again.What nonsense!
I have a question, did Mary give birth to God or only to Christ? It goes right to what the Incarnation is. The Incarnation is a single, unique occurence, and Jesus is God in the flesh for eternity. Yes, flesh, bones, muscle, blood and sinew, now and forever, the same body that St. Thomas touched.More nonsense!
I am not waving my hand at you, I am pointing out that if you do not believe Jesus Christ has a body, and by that I mean the normal definition of body, it means that he has no flesh to share. I also happen to believe, for good reason, that this in effect denies the Incarnation. Maybe you are inconsistent, but for your doctrine to work Jesus would have to become flesh, then put it aside.Even more nonsense!

We are made in the image of God. Is God's image physical? Indeed not! IT IS SPIRITUAL. God is God, Jesus is God, the Holy SPIRIT is God, all are different yet all the same because they are one. When we leave this life we will put away this physical body and take on a SPIRITUAL body (I do not have a Bible in front of me at the moment but I am sure you know of the verse to which I refer.)
Also, sharing his flesh and blood is not the same thing as his comming in glory to judge the nations, that is a serious category error, especially since no one I know of makes such a claim besides you.Except Spiritmech, Jude3b, among others. My beliefs are not inconsistent and do not require elaborate explanations as are/do yours.

[Maxentius]

What nonsense!
More nonsense!
Even more nonsense!

Talk about waving hands! Come ON!

We are made in the image of God. Is God's image physical? Indeed not! IT IS SPIRITUAL.

Now it is both, because Jesus has a body. I know you don't believe that but I do. What exactly does the Incarnation mean to you? Regarding my statement that your doctrine means Jesus puts on his human nature like a coat--if I am wrong about you, just what kind of human nature does Jesus Christ have today?

God is God, Jesus is God, the Holy SPIRIT is God, all are different yet all the same because they are one.

But the Logos, or eternal Son, also became flesh. With blood, sinew and everything. But according to you, he no longer has a body like that, it is "spiritual." So he must have un-become flesh, and exchanged his flesh for something spiritual. Hence, you deny the incarnation and in effect say he puts his human nature on like a coat.

When we leave this life we will put away this physical body and take on a SPIRITUAL body (I do not have a Bible in front of me at the moment but I am sure you know of the verse to which I refer.)

So now do you deny the bodily resurrection too? What is this spiritual body? Is it the same body I have now? Becuse if it is not, that is not a resurection bur re-incarbation, i.e. I receive a brand new body that is not connected ontologically or physically with my present body.

Also, was Jesus body after the resurrection the same on he had when he died?

Except Spiritmech, Jude3b, among others. My beliefs are not inconsistent and do not require elaborate explanations as are/do yours.

So these people believe that Jesus' presence in Holy Communion is the same thing as his comming in glory to judge the nations? How about we let them speak for themselves.

[VFarris01]

What nonsense!
More nonsense!
Even more nonsense!
Talk about waving hands! Come ON!
Your statements and beliefs are what the are Max… NONSENSE!
We are made in the image of God. Is God's image physical? Indeed not! IT IS SPIRITUAL.
Now it is both, because Jesus has a body. I know you don't believe that but I do. What exactly does the Incarnation mean to you? Regarding my statement that your doctrine means Jesus puts on his human nature like a coat--if I am wrong about you, just what kind of human nature does Jesus Christ have today?Jesus is/was God on Earth in human form. What does God/Jesus need with a human body in Heaven? Let your reason take hold for a moment... Is Jesus forever stuck in a human body? This, my friend Max, is nonsense.

I do not understand why you think my belief is Jesus has a “human nature.” Jesus has no human nature, only a spiritual nature. He simply used and will again use a human body to be among us again on Earth. Jesus is God; why can He not do as He wishes and wear a human body when He “needs” to? How does this deny an incarnation of Jesus on Earth… I do not see it as such and does not require an elaborate explanation to understand as your beliefs do.
God is God, Jesus is God, the Holy SPIRIT is God, all are different yet all the same because they are one.
But the Logos, or eternal Son, also became flesh. With blood, sinew and everything. But according to you, he no longer has a body like that, it is "spiritual." So he must have un-become flesh, and exchanged his flesh for something spiritual. Hence, you deny the incarnation and in effect say he puts his human nature on like a coat.See above…
When we leave this life we will put away this physical body and take on a SPIRITUAL body (I do not have a Bible in front of me at the moment but I am sure you know of the verse to which I refer.)
So now do you deny the bodily resurrection too? What is this spiritual body? Is it the same body I have now? Becuse if it is not, that is not a resurection bur re-incarbation, i.e. I receive a brand new body that is not connected ontologically or physically with my present body.
Of Jesus, NO! Of you and me? Essentially, yes. I do not know what my spiritual body will look like but the Bible says I will have one. Do you believe you will forever occupy a human body (though an incorruptable one)? You are going to be a bit uncomfortable in that pine box or is your body going to be “mystically” transferred to purgatory (and mystically moved back if for chance some archaeologist digs you up) while awaiting His return to Earth.
Also, was Jesus body after the resurrection the same on he had when he died?
He said His body would be resurrected, so, yes. Does He occupy one now? No, why should He?
Except Spiritmech, Jude3b, among others. My beliefs are not inconsistent and do not require elaborate explanations as are/do yours.
So these people believe that Jesus' presence in Holy Communion is the same thing as his comming in glory to judge the nations? How about we let them speak for themselves.
I have learned Sm is a RC and I misread one of his posts, however, 3b and I agree 99 44/100% of the time and you know we do in this instance.

You are making an assumption about a correlation between the “Lords Supper” and the “return of the king;” I am just saying here that the angels said Jesus would return to Earth as He came (and I do believe He will return in a human body). The question here is, if Jesus is in Heaven in a human body, has He not returned if the “real presence” is His flesh as the bread of communion?

[Maxentius]

Your statements and beliefs are what the are Max… NONSENSE!

More hand waving.

Jesus is/was God on Earth in human form. What does God/Jesus need with a human body in Heaven? Let your reason take hold for a moment... Is Jesus forever stuck in a human body? This, my friend Max, is nonsense.

Then why did you object to my characterization of your view that Jesus puts on and takes off his himan nature like a coat?

God did not "need" to become man for his own benefit, but for ours. Also, I would not characterize God's graceous action of becomming man as "stuck" in a human body--the very thing we are preparing to celebrate! He assumed humanity to redeem humanity, and he is forever the God-man Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures.

I do not understand why you think my belief is Jesus has a “human nature.” Jesus has no human nature, only a spiritual nature.

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
(1Ti 2:5-6 ESV)

Rom 5:17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.


You posit a man who does not have a human nature. So if Jesus Christ does not have a human nature, why does St. Paul refer to him as a man?

Also, if Jesus Christ became man to undo Adam's sin, how could that be if he discards his body? Wouldn't it follow that he undoes his own work?

He simply used and will again use a human body to be among us again on Earth.

The term for a spirit using multiple bodies across time is re-incarnation, a non-biblical and un-christian concept. Now I hope you won't get upset at my description above, but that is in fact what you teach, Jesus Christ will re-incarnate when he comes again because now he is pure spirit.

Jesus is God; why can He not do as He wishes and wear a human body when He “needs” to? How does this deny an incarnation of Jesus on Earth… I do not see it as such and does not require an elaborate explanation to understand as your beliefs do.[/b]

I do not posit Jesus Christ putting on, taking off, and putting on again a human body--so if the criteria is simplicity I don't think you would want to argue that way.

BTW, where is this multiple incarnation in Scripture?

Secondly, it is not a matter of what Jesus Christ can do, but of what he did do. St. paul plainly says that Jesus Christ is a man.

Thirdly, what kind of resurrection is it that we receive a "spiritual" body? That is not what Job said:

whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me! (Job 19:27 ESV)


Job's own eyes will see his Lord--not some spirit.

Do you believe you will forever occupy a human body (though an incorruptable one)?

Yes.

You are going to be a bit uncomfortable in that pine box or is your body going to be “mystically” transferred to purgatory (and mystically moved back if for chance some archaeologist digs you up) while awaiting His return to Earth.

My body will be raised, the exact mechanics to not matter to me.

[b]He said His body would be resurrected, so, yes. Does He occupy one now? No, why should He?

Why shoudn't he? St. Paul refers to him as a man, you must either posit a man without a human body or redefine "man" into something else for your doctrine to work.

I have learned Sm is a RC and I misread one of his posts, however, 3b and I agree 99 44/100% of the time and you know we do in this instance.

I know no such thing and neither do you. It is possible, but I do not claim to know what others think unless they tell me.

[b]You are making an assumption about a correlation between the “Lords Supper” and the “return of the king;” I am just saying here that the angels said Jesus would return to Earth as He came (and I do believe He will return in a human body). The question here is, if Jesus is in Heaven in a human body, has He not returned if the “real presence” is His flesh as the bread of communion?

Not in that final way, but he distributes his body and blood. He has not come to raise the dead yet, but he will. That does not exclude his real presence today.

Finally, your doctrines do deny the Incarnation, because for you it was just something convenient for a specific purpose that was discarded only to be put on again--a system without a scintilla of Scriptural support. Instead, the Incarnation is God becomming a creature to save his creatures from their death.

I don't think further discussion would be useful since you have such a different doctrine of Incarnation from mine. I don't think it is an Incarnation at all, let alone the idea that Jesus Christ will re-incarnate.

[George Blaisdell]

He said His body would be resurrected...
Does He occupy one now?
No, why should He?


Was He *BODILY* raised from the dead?
Was He *BODILY* resurrected?
Did He eat and drink in His resurrected BODY?
Did Thomas PHYSICALLY touch His *BODILY* wounds?
Did He *BODILY* pass through doors?
Did He *BODILY* ascend into Heaven?

The answers are all 'yes'...

His resurrected body is different from his pre-ressurrection body...

Both are flesh...

One is glorified...

Human flesh is now a part of the God-Head...

THAT is a FACT of the INCARNATION of Christ...

It is an AWESOME fact...

Why is it giving you such fits?

Arsenios

[VFarris01]

Your statements and beliefs are what the are Max… NONSENSE!
More hand waving.
Knowing your beliefs are rediculous nonsense must really be hard to take, huh.
Jesus is/was God on Earth in human form. What does God/Jesus need with a human body in Heaven? Let your reason take hold for a moment... Is Jesus forever stuck in a human body? This, my friend Max, is nonsense.
Then why did you object to my characterization of your view that Jesus puts on and takes off his himan nature like a coat?
I believe, as you should, human nature and a human body are not the same thing. Because Jesus had a human body and will again have/put on a human body when He returns did not/does not make Him human… He is GOD with or without a human body.

God keeps His human body in the closet with His burning bush, pillar of fire, and the other forms in which He manifested Himself on Earth.
God did not "need" to become man for his own benefit, but for ours.
Well, duh.
Also, I would not characterize God's graceous action of becomming man as "stuck" in a human body…
According to you He is…
He assumed humanity to redeem humanity
Agreed!
and he is forever the God-man Jesus Christ
Why?
according to the Scriptures.
Untrue.
I do not understand why you think my belief is Jesus has a “human nature.” Jesus has no human nature, only a spiritual nature.
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (1Ti 2:5-6 ESV)

Rom 5:17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

You posit a man who does not have a human nature. So if Jesus Christ does not have a human nature, why does St. Paul refer to him as a man?
Because the form of man was the way (Jesus) God manifested Himself to us.
Also, if Jesus Christ became man to undo Adam's sin, how could that be if he discards his body? Wouldn't it follow that he undoes his own work?
JC DID NOT come to undo Adam’s sin… this is the original sin concept of the RCC not taught in the Bible.
He simply used and will again use a human body to be among us again on Earth.
The term for a spirit using multiple bodies across time is re-incarnation, a non-biblical and un-christian concept. Now I hope you won't get upset at my description above, but that is in fact what you teach, Jesus Christ will re-incarnate when he comes again because now he is pure spirit.
It is only you saying Jesus uses multiple bodies; I never said anything of the sort… I believe Jesus uses the SAME body; this IS NOT reincarnation.
I do not posit Jesus Christ putting on, taking off, and putting on again a human body--so if the criteria is simplicity I don't think you would want to argue that way.

BTW, where is this multiple incarnation in Scripture?[/quote]
It is only you saying Jesus uses multiple bodies; I never said anything of the sort… I believe Jesus uses the SAME body; this IS NOT multiple reincarnations.
Secondly, it is not a matter of what Jesus Christ can do, but of what he did do. St. paul plainly says that Jesus Christ is a man.
Because the form of man was the way (Jesus) God manifested Himself to us.
Thirdly, what kind of resurrection is it that we receive a "spiritual" body? That is not what Job said:
whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me! (Job 19:27 ESV)
Job's own eyes will see his Lord--not some spirit.
Huh? Why does it have to be a physical body? I would think my spiritual body would also have a means of seeing.
Do you believe you will forever occupy a human body (though an incorruptible one)?
Yes.
Why? The Bible does not teach this; it teaches we will have a SPIRITUAL body.
You are going to be a bit uncomfortable in that pine box or is your body going to be “mystically” transferred to purgatory (and mystically moved back if for chance some archaeologist digs you up) while awaiting His return to Earth.
My body will be raised, the exact mechanics to not matter to me.
What about those who have lived who’s body no longer exists? If something mystical is your answer you need more help than I thought.
He said His body would be resurrected, so, yes. Does He occupy one now? No, why should He?
Why shoudn't he? St. Paul refers to him as a man, you must either posit a man without a human body or redefine "man" into something else for your doctrine to work.
Because the form of man was the way (Jesus) God manifested Himself to us.
I have learned Sm is a RC and I misread one of his posts, however, 3b and I agree 99 44/100% of the time and you know we do in this instance.
I know no such thing and neither do you. It is possible, but I do not claim to know what others think unless they tell me.
Since you do not critically read anything… here is one… though later than your post…
His resurrected body is different from his pre-ressurrection body...
You are making an assumption about a correlation between the “Lords Supper” and the “return of the king;” I am just saying here that the angels said Jesus would return to Earth as He came (and I do believe He will return in a human body). The question here is, if Jesus is in Heaven in a human body, has He not returned if the “real presence” is His flesh as the bread of communion?
Not in that final way, but he distributes his body and blood. He has not come to raise the dead yet, but he will. That does not exclude his real presence today.
Certainly it does because the “real presence” doctrine makes Jesus’ body present on Earth when it clearly is not.
Finally, your doctrines do deny the Incarnation, because for you it was just something convenient for a specific purpose that was discarded only to be put on again--a system without a scintilla of Scriptural support.
Imagine that… someone stating something without Scriptural support… but it makes perfect sense… unlike your mumbo-jumbo…
I don't think further discussion would be useful since you have such a different doctrine of Incarnation from mine. I don't think it is an Incarnation at all, let alone the idea that Jesus Christ will re-incarnate.
Your loss and I do not believe Jesus will be re-incarnated; you just want to think I do.

[Maxentius]

Knowing your beliefs are rediculous nonsense must really be hard to take, huh.

Ok, you want to be heretical? Fine. You have no evidence for your heretical, gospel denying, anti-Christ doctrine beyond your gnostic speculations about "spiritual bodies" and re-incarnations. Why do I say your doctrine is anti-Christ? Because the Holy Apostle St. John prophesied about you when he said "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already." St. John wrote in Greek, and in Greek the verb "has come" is past imperfect, which means that Jesus Christ has flesh today. You deny that despite several proofs and so you teach the doctrines of the anti-Christ.

And please spare me your pathetic "I know you are but what am I" childish and ignorant rants where you just try and turn around the accusation I make to you. Your teaching is plainly heretical and almost classically gnostic, no matter how many people you can quote who want to follow you to perdition.

I believe, as you should, human nature and a human body are not the same thing.

More foolish, anti-Christ, heretical talk. You make a new definition of man to support your gnostic, heretical, anti-Christ proposition that somehow there is somethig that can be called a "man" that does not have a body, as if we have an essence that is the real person that is not our bodies. You treat our bodies like the skin a snake sheds, just a useless shell that covers the inward "real, marvelous you." Meanwhile, god saw fit to become this "shell" and reddeem all our poor "shells" in the bargain, so that we, meaning our "shells" as integral parts of our persons, will be with our Lord and God, who is also one of us with his very own "shell."! If yo ulook to your own speculations about godly things you will find the devil at worst or an idol at best. Much better to seek God where he promised to be, at Holy Communion, at Holy Baptism, when two or more are gathered in his name--but certainly not in speculations!

Let go of your false doctrunes VFarris, or you may indeed lose your salvation. This is not some academic discussion,it is really a matter of salvation!

God keeps His human body in the closet with His burning bush, pillar of fire, and the other forms in which He manifested Himself on Earth.

So you deny that Jesus Christ is in the flesh, and so you have the doctrine of the anti-Christ.

Because the form of man was the way (Jesus) God manifested Himself to us.

Yet another example of a gnostic interpretatin of Scripture. True, St. Paul says Jesus Christ took the "form" of a servant, but St. John says he became flesh--there is now and forever an identity between the second person of the Trinity and the Man Jesus Christ. It is not some "form" that can be put aside, he became flesh it is an integral part of the one Person we call Jesus Christ. This undoes all of your doctrines regarding the Incarnation, which you deny in favor of a gnostic, anti-Christ denial of Jesus' coming in the flesh.

JC DID NOT come to undo Adam’s sin… this is the original sin concept of the RCC not taught in the Bible.

Do you even read the Bible, or do you depend on direct gnosis from some spirit, you know, the one who preaches against the Incarnation?

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. (Rom 5:12-15 ESV)

According to you, Adam's sin was the only one not undone, when in fact Jesus undoes all sins, they are blotted out, that Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, remember? Not only that, but God in the flesh is so good and powerful that he undoes the effects of Adam's sin so that our FLESH will live forever when we are glorified--he saves the whole person, body and soul, without eliminating either part of our created psycho-somatic nature.

It is only you saying Jesus uses multiple bodies; I never said anything of the sort… I believe Jesus uses the SAME body; this IS NOT reincarnation.

Then you believe in the even more ridiculous idea that Jesus stores his body for a future time, or that he may recreate it, like I might buy a new coat that looks like an ond one and put it on and say "it is the same coat!" Still anti-Christ, still foolish, still gnostic. And the charge of re-incarnation would still hold, since he would basically re-incarnate assuming your doctrine.

And I fail to see where I have ever posited Jesus having more than one body. "I know you are but what am I" right?

Because the form of man was the way (Jesus) God manifested Himself to us.

He became man, he did not just assume a form. Nowhere are we told he put aside his human nature either, that is based on your neo-gnostic speculation regarding the resurrection.

Huh? Why does it have to be a physical body? I would think my spiritual body would also have a means of seeing.

I really don't see how your gnostic speculations are useful in a discussion regarding the doctrine of the resurrection. You have to posit this new category of "spiritual body" and put all kinds of speculative characteristics on it to make your rube-goldberg doctrinal speculations work. The fact is that the resurrection will be physical, and even from the grave, as per St. Paul. But you apparently would rather speculate that a spiritual body is not our present body.

What about those who have lived who’s body no longer exists? If something mystical is your answer you need more help than I thought.

So now you argue like a gnostic, and even use some of their arguments! What kind of god do you worship that cannot raise everybody, even ones who have returned to "dust?" Have you never reead how God created Adam from dust?

Certainly it does because the “real presence” doctrine makes Jesus’ body present on Earth when it clearly is not.

No it doesn't, and I explained why.

[Maxentius]

THAT is a FACT of the INCARNATION of Christ...

It is an AWESOME fact...

Why is it giving you such fits?

Arsenios

Because truely believing in the Incarnation would upset much if not all of his other doctrines.

[VFarris01]

Knowing your beliefs are ridiculous nonsense must really be hard to take, huh.Ok, you want to be heretical? Fine. You have no evidence for your heretical, gospel denying, anti-Christ doctrine beyond your gnostic speculations about "spiritual bodies" and re-incarnations.

Back to your patented name calling again I see; hardly becoming. Did you attend your anger management session today and did you take your medication?

I don’t have evidence! (Watch out, I rarely use contractions.) I have plenty of evidence! More on this later.

Why do I say your doctrine is anti-Christ? Because the Holy Apostle St. John prophesied about you when he said "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already." St. John wrote in Greek, and in Greek the verb "has come" is past imperfect, which means that Jesus Christ has flesh today. You deny that despite several proofs and so you teach the doctrines of the anti-Christ.

I suppose you are referring to:

(1) Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: (3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (emphasis mine, VF)

My friend, I DO believe Jesus came to Earth and took on human form (came in the flesh). That I do not believe He continually maintains a human form is because He does not NEED to be in human form in Heaven. I firmly believe God to be a practical diety. Why get your panties in such a bunch over something so petty?

I believe, as you should, human nature and a human body are not the same thing.More foolish, anti-Christ, heretical talk. You make a new definition of man to support your gnostic, heretical, anti-Christ proposition that somehow there is somethig that can be called a "man" that does not have a body, as if we have an essence that is the real person that is not our bodies. You treat our bodies like the skin a snake sheds, just a useless shell that covers the inward "real, marvelous you." Meanwhile, god saw fit to become this "shell" and reddeem all our poor "shells" in the bargain, so that we, meaning our "shells" as integral parts of our persons, will be with our Lord and God, who is also one of us with his very own "shell."! If you look to your own speculations about godly things you will find the devil at worst or an idol at best. Much better to seek God where he promised to be, at Holy Communion, at Holy Baptism, when two or more are gathered in his name--but certainly not in speculations!

I suppose the phrase, “that is just human nature (to act or say such and such)” has no meaning on your planet.

Let go of your false doctrunes VFarris, or you may indeed lose your salvation. This is not some academic discussion,it is really a matter of salvation!What false doctrine? Now you sound like 3b and you villify him for this type of argumentation.

God keeps His human body in the closet with His burning bush, pillar of fire, and the other forms in which He manifested Himself on Earth.

So you deny that Jesus Christ is in the flesh, and so you have the doctrine of the anti-Christ.

I do not deny Jesus used human form for His short stay on Earth to fulfill His mission. There is simply no need for Him to remain in a human body in Heaven, see above.

Because the form of man was the way (Jesus) God manifested Himself to us.Yet another example of a gnostic interpretatin of Scripture. True, St. Paul says Jesus Christ took the "form" of a servant, but St. John says he became flesh--there is now and forever an identity between the second person of the Trinity and the Man Jesus Christ. It is not some "form" that can be put aside, he became flesh it is an integral part of the one Person we call Jesus Christ. This undoes all of your doctrines regarding the Incarnation, which you deny in favor of a gnostic, anti-Christ denial of Jesus' coming in the flesh.

Sorry, Max, I disagree and so does the Bible, read on.

JC DID NOT come to undo Adam’s sin… this is the original sin concept of the RCC not taught in the Bible.Do you even read the Bible, or do you depend on direct gnosis from some spirit, you know, the one who preaches against the Incarnation?

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. (Rom 5:12-15 ESV)

According to you, Adam's sin was the only one not undone, when in fact Jesus undoes all sins, they are blotted out, that Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, remember? Not only that, but God in the flesh is so good and powerful that he undoes the effects of Adam's sin so that our FLESH will live forever when we are glorified--he saves the whole person, body and soul, without eliminating either part of our created psycho-somatic nature.

Yes, Max, I read my Bible and no, Max, I am only responsible for my sins as Adam is for his, and you are for yours.

(9) In this was manifested the love of God toward US, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (10) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for OUR sins. (emphasis mine, VF)

Adam’s sin only caused our bodies to die… not our souls.

It is only you saying Jesus uses multiple bodies; I never said anything of the sort… I believe Jesus uses the SAME body; this IS NOT reincarnation.Then you believe in the even more ridiculous idea that Jesus stores his body for a future time, or that he may recreate it, like I might buy a new coat that looks like an ond one and put it on and say "it is the same coat!" Still anti-Christ, still foolish, still gnostic. And the charge of re-incarnation would still hold, since he would basically re-incarnate assuming your doctrine.

I thought we went over this… but you still want to accuse me of something I do not believe.

Because the form of man was the way (Jesus) God manifested Himself to us.He became man, he did not just assume a form. Nowhere are we told he put aside his human nature either, that is based on your neo-gnostic speculation regarding the resurrection.

Read on to find out what Jesus, the man, looks like… hardly the look of a man.

Huh? Why does it have to be a physical body? I would think my spiritual body would also have a means of seeing.I really don't see how your gnostic speculations are useful in a discussion regarding the doctrine of the resurrection. You have to posit this new category of "spiritual body" and put all kinds of speculative characteristics on it to make your rube-goldberg doctrinal speculations work. The fact is that the resurrection will be physical, and even from the grave, as per St. Paul. But you apparently would rather speculate that a spiritual body is not our present body.

(26) And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (27) So God created man in His Own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

We are created in the image of God. What is the image of God you ask?

(24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. (emphasis mine, VF)

What does the spirit of God look like?

(12) Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: (13) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son: (14) In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. (emphasis mine, VF)

What will we look like in Heaven?

(23) The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, (24) Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. (25) Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: (26) Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. (27) And last of all the woman died also. (28) Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (30) For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (emphasis mine, VF)

Compared to Jesus…

(2) Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see Him as He is. (emphasis mine, VF)

But what did John say Jesus looked like?

(12) And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; (13) And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. (14) His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; (15) And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. (16) And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. (17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last. (emphasis mine, VF)

Hardly what someone who is supposed to look human looks like. (Perhaps this is His glorified body.)

You would have us believe God to be created in the image of man and a continuous incarnation of God as man; this totally defies reason and violates Biblical teaching.

What about those who have lived who’s body no longer exists? If something mystical is your answer you need more help than I thought.

So now you argue like a gnostic, and even use some of their arguments! What kind of god do you worship that cannot raise everybody, even ones who have returned to "dust?" Have you never reead how God created Adam from dust?

What kind of God do you worship that cannot change His appearance as He sees fit. Have you never read how God is able to do anything He wishes?

Certainly it does because the “real presence” doctrine makes Jesus’ body present on Earth when it clearly is not.No it doesn't, and I explained why.

Yes it does and it is clear even to a blind man.

Because truely believing in the Incarnation would upset much if not all of his other doctrines.Sorry, Max, I AM NOT the one with doctrine problems; you are.

For one, you see, Jesus having a "real presence" in spirit in the "Lord's Supper" makes logical sense and keeps me from having to make excuses for and elaborate explanations excusing His physical return in the emblems of bread and juice (wine) which has yet to occur.

[Maxentius]

Back to your patented name calling again I see; hardly becoming. Did you attend your anger management session today and did you take your medication?

Whining is not evidence.

I don’t have evidence! (Watch out, I rarely use contractions.) I have plenty of evidence! More on this later.

Nope, I read your whole post and you have not supplied any evidence, just more speculation based on your secret gnosis and quotations that are laughably inept in "proving" your point.

My friend, I DO believe Jesus came to Earth and took on human form (came in the flesh). That I do not believe He continually maintains a human form is because He does not NEED to be in human form in Heaven. I firmly believe God to be a practical diety. Why get your panties in such a bunch over something so petty?

And you completely ignored the point about Greek grammar. But for one who desires endless speculation, that is not a real problem is it.

Deal with the grammar.

I suppose the phrase, “that is just human nature (to act or say such and such)” has no meaning on your planet.

This is what you call "evidence?" This after you completely bypassed what I quoted to you? Does anyone use this to refer to humans without a body? Your very example only proves my point!

I do not deny Jesus used human form for His short stay on Earth to fulfill His mission. There is simply no need for Him to remain in a human body in Heaven, see above.

I am already aware of your gnostic propensity to deny the Incarnation while attempting to use language that sounds like you believe in it. I also don't care what your speculations are regarding what God needs to do, or whether he does only what he absolutely needs to do. I stand on God's Word, which you did not bother to refute. Instead you want to go on about Adam while misrepresenting what I was saying.

To the point, your denial of Jesus' present human body is a gnostic heresy as I outlined in my earlier post.

Yes, Max, I read my Bible and no, Max, I am only responsible for my sins as Adam is for his, and you are for yours.

You see? I never said I was guilty of Adam's sin. But I am born spiritually dead because of Adam's sin. This makes many of your quotations beside the point.

Also, Jesus' sacrifice covers Adam's sin, so maybe we will see our father in heaven. You savvy?

I thought we went over this… but you still want to accuse me of something I do not believe.

More "evidence" on your part? Remember when I asked you how I mischaracterize you when I say you believe Jesus Christ puts on and takes off his human nature like a coat? No rebuttal or clarification, just another snippet from your bag-o-retorts. Yet you continue to say he does not have a body now, and he will have one again. You have further failed miserably to describe your anthropology where a man is someone who does not have a body even if his nature is a human one. (Your postulation that a man can be a man without a body is frankly bizzarre and so does not really constitute anything like evidence). All this is so you can posit your multiple incarnations and deny the Real Presence which is ultimately a denial of Christ's very words of institution.

Read on to find out what Jesus, the man, looks like… hardly the look of a man.

You mean the guy who ate fish and who they did not recognize but thought he was just some guy on the beach? The guy who specifically stated he is flesh and bone? Do you see why I believe you do not actually read the Bible? Also, is this more of the "evidence" you promised above?

We are created in the image of God. What is the image of God you ask?

[verse=John 4:24 KJV](24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. (emphasis mine, VF)

And your denial that the Son has a human nature (despite your gnostic-like attempt to posit an essence that makes the body accidental) is a denial of the Incarnation, which is an anti-Christian, gnostic heresy--period, according to the Apostles. A heresy you continue to hold despite clear passages of Scripture provided, and despite the fact that you still have no evidence beyond your own speculations regarding human nature and what God must/can do.

Yes, God is spirit, but in the person of Jesus Christ he is also man, remember St. Paul and the man Jesus Christ? Like the gnostics you either un-intentionally or intentionally follow, you like to select quotes that suit your secret gnosis and you spiritualize the ones that positively refute your secret gnosis, like "This is my body" and "The Word became flesh", "the Man Jesus Christ" etc. etc. Each of these you spiritualize, either straight away (This is my body), by qualifying that is is no longer the case (The Word became flesh), or by inventing new natures to fit your doctrines (a man who is human, but does not have a body).

Also, your Christology makes a hash of Jesus as a mediator between man and God. He can do this because he is both at the same time. When you spiritualize the Messiah you make it so that we do not have an intercessor of our own flesh and blood. God is literally related to each and every one of us physically. Your doctrine denies that truth and so it denies the intercession of Jesus Christ--who is a high priest without a physical body according to you.

What does the spirit of God look like?

Who knows? I guess we can speculate now! Or maybe we can take passages out of literary context, or completely miss their point!

[verse=Colossians 1:12-15 KJV] (12) Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: (13) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son: (14) In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. (emphasis mine, VF)

It is clear that the invisibility applies to the Father (of whom is the Son the image?), which even a relatively sloppy exegete would see, IOW a very low bar to jump over yet you managed to trip over it. More "evidence" from you?

[verse=Revelation 1:12-17 KJV](12) And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; (13) And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. (14) His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; (15) And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. (16) And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. (17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last. (emphasis mine, VF)....Hardly what someone who is supposed to look human looks like. (Perhaps this is His glorified body.)

Oh yes, O exegete! Lets read apocalyptic literature literalistically! I suppose you believe Jesus Christ has a sword for a tongue? Maybe he has a little waggily tail because he is the Lamb of God? Maybe he rides a horse (how do they live in heaven? And is there oxygen there for the candles to burn, and what does God need with gold, anyway?) This is your "evidence" and the way you treat Holy Scripture? Nah, I'll use the clear passages to interpret the ones that are in literature designed to be obsure.

You would have us believe God to be created in the image of man and a continuous incarnation of God as man; this totally defies reason and violates Biblical teaching.

Regarding defying biblical teaching, I think you are flat out wrong, and your exegesis above does nothing to change my opinion. Your exegesis is frankly laughable. Jesus' "continuous" incarnation is the teaching of the Apostles, which is to say the Bible, which you have done nothing to dispute--instead you want to use apoaclyptic literature to "prove" your point, which only solidifies the idea that you don't know what you are doing.

Regarding reason, the same is true of the Cross

What kind of God do you worship that cannot change His appearance as He sees fit. Have you never read how God is able to do anything He wishes?

I worship the one True God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Father is spirit only, as is the Holy Ghost, but the Son is the blessed God-man, now and forever according to the Apostles.

You apparently worship some puffy spirit in the sky who arbitrarily puts on and takes off his human nature (yes, I said human nature, because that requires a body!)

Sorry, Max, I AM NOT the one with doctrine problems; you are.

I knew I would get an "I know you are but what am I" moment.

For one, you see, Jesus having a "real presence" in spirit in the "Lord's Supper" makes logical sense and keeps me from having to make excuses for and elaborate explanations excusing His physical return in the emblems of bread and juice (wine) which has yet to occur.

Yes, logic, AKA gnosis, the Queen of Theology! Let's not believe things which offend our intellects, after all we should be able to fit God into our little gnosis boxes!

What can we speculate about today?

[VFarris01]

Wow! Such ranting and raving. Seriously, have you been taking your medication?

Here is what Paul has to say about our "raised" bodies:

(35) But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what manner of body do they come? (36) Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened except it die: (37) and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind; (38) but God giveth it a body even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own. (39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. (40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial (heavenly bodies and earthly bodies in the KJV, VF): but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (41) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. (42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (43) it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: (44) it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (emphasis and coments mine, VF)

What is this! You "preach" we will have a human body in heaven, but Paul disagrees with you does he not? Natural body = human body, spiritual body (G4152) = spirit body. These my good friend ARE NOT the same.

(45) So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (46) Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. (47) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. (48) As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. (49) And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

V49, We will no longer have an earthly image (that is human) but will take on a heavenly image (that is spirit).

(50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Wait a minute! Have you not said all along we will still have a flesh and blood body albiet a glorified flesh and blood body at the resurrection? Sorry, only spirit may inherit (be allowed in) heaven! Jesus cannot have (inhabit) a human body (even a glorified one because His glorified body would still be flesh and blood; right?) in heaven for this very reason.

To finish the verse...

(51) Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, (52) in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (54) But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Paul says this at a later time:

(14) For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; (15) and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again. (16) Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.

Christ is NO LONGER flesh and blood but something else. I am not making this up... this is what Paul said!

Here is an interesting appraisal from another place...

http://www.bibleforums.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9675&goto=nextnewest

[Maxentius]

Wow! Such ranting and raving. Seriously, have you been taking your medication?

Nope, I don't need to, and I still do not see you addressing any issues, just adding more material. And it is amusing to see you fall on your false-hermeneutical sword once again. Also, you still will not deal with the grammar in 1 John 4:2-3, because you simply can't, and you prefer to change the subject and mis-interpret St. Paul to fit your spiritual speculations.

You also completely dropped the topic of whether it is meaningful to talk about human nature without reference to a real human body. It is because you cannot do so--it makes a hash of your speculations regarding Jesus' body--and so you want to bring in new material--a habit everyone who denies the Real Presence indulges in here on this thread! A very interesting thing indeed.

Here is what Paul has to say about our "raised" bodies:

1 Corinthians 15:35-54 ASV(35) But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what manner of body do they come? (36) Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened except it die: (37) and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind; (38) but God giveth it a body even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own. (39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. (40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial (heavenly bodies and earthly bodies in the KJV, VF): but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (41) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. (42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (43) it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: (44) it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (emphasis and coments mine, VF)

What is this! You "preach" we will have a human body in heaven, but Paul disagrees with you does he not? Natural body = human body, spiritual body (G4152) = spirit body. These my good friend ARE NOT the same.

Ah, hermeneutics by keyword! Unfortunately key-word searches do not give us any insight as to what St. Paul is saying, do they?

Let's look again. According to you St. Paul means that our bodies are spiritual and not material. But once again you do not see the forest for the trees. In St. Paul's writings natural often stands for our sinful pre-regenerated flesh. How do we know this? Because in several places St. Paul says as much, that the natural man cannot understand the things of God until God regenerates him, then he is a spiritual person:

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one."
(1Co 2:14-15 ESV)

So, there is a natural man and a spiritual man, the difference is whether or not he is regenerated, not of whether or not he has a body--unless you want to assert that Christians do not have bodies today, or that Christians today are not spiritual persons. Only a true gnostic would then conclude that after we become "spiritual persons" that we no longer have human bodies, or that somehow our bodies are not redeemed as well.

"Spiritual body" is akin to "A spiritual person", not a different kind of body all together--it is one alive and infused with the Holy Spirit and so is the most real, alive body we can possibly have.

"For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit."
(Rom 7:5-6 ESV)

We see the same thing at work here, O Exegete. Living in the flesh is living in sin, but not because flesh itself is evil, otherwise Jesus Christ would not have assumed flesh! (That is another ancient gnostic heresy BTW, matter is evil and so the Logos, who is spirit, would not assume a true material body. There are echoes of this in your doctrines of Jesus' present body.) The Spirit brings new life, and so our persons, which by nature includes our bodies, are "spiritual" because we are alive and not dead in trespasses and sins, "fleshly." "Spiritual", "pneuma", "breath", life. Our present bodies are not fully redeemed, but when we are raised again in our present bodies they will be fully "spiritual" because they will be more fully alive than is possible this side of the Eschathon.

Regarding different glories, so what? The incorruptable, glorified resurrection body is different in just that way--incorruptability. Jesus Christ will undo the corruption Adam brought into the world for all those who believe. Also, the "its" (it is sown in corruption..it is raised in glory...) all refer to the same body, which is plain as day if you were a more careful exegete. Nothing here says that we receive new "spiritual" bodies that are not organically connected with our present fleshly bodies, your secret gnosis notwithstanding.

Doing a search on the words "spirit" or "spiritual" and drawing conclusions because they may be forced into your theological framework is a very, very sloppy hermeneutic--which is unfortunately par for you.

(45) So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (46) Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. (47) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. (48) As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. (49) And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

V49, We will no longer have an earthly image (that is human) but will take on a heavenly image (that is spirit).

Once again, you utterly fail to see what St. Paul is saying. For St. Paul in this passage, "earthly" means sinful because the creation is corrupted by sin, and so anything that comes from creation is subject to sin and death (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%208:19-21;&version=47;)--"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--"(Rom 5:12 ESV) Heaven is not subject to sin, and so those from heaven are not subject to sin and death, which is why it is necessary for a savior to come from incorruptable to save the corruptable.

(50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Wait a minute! Have you not said all along we will still have a flesh and blood body albiet a glorified flesh and blood body at the resurrection? Sorry, only spirit may inherit (be allowed in) heaven! Jesus cannot have (inhabit) a human body (even a glorified one because His glorified body would still be flesh and blood; right?) in heaven for this very reason.

And once again, in your over-gnosticized, key-word hermeneutic you do not see what is going on. Flesh and blood refers to pre-regenerated people, not material bodies. Why? Because our present bodies are corrupt--we die. But we will put on incorruptable bodies, which are also material and which have intimate connections with our present bodies. So our present, sinful selves cannot inherit God's Kingdom, but our regenerated, "spiritual" (remember our discussion above?) selves will receive the kingdom of God. All the while we remain humans, with human natures that by definition have bodies.

(51) Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, (52) in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (54) But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Nothing here contradicts anything I have said.

Paul says this at a later time:

2 Corinthians 5:14-16 ASV](14) For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; (15) and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again. (16) Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.

Christ is NO LONGER flesh and blood but something else. I am not making this up... this is what Paul said!

What a hoot! You really don't know what you are doing! Remember what "flesh" means when St. Paul talks about these things? Do you really want to posit Christians who do not have bodies, like you want to posit a human nature without a human body? All this do deny Jesus' plain words "This is my body.." simply because it contradicts your gnosticized, dualistic interpretation of the Pauline corpus?

What does "know him according to the flesh" mean? How about those who know Jesus as an executed criminal, or a wise man! This is what the "fleshly" man will see because the things of God are undiscernable foolishness to him, but the "spiritual" man will see the Lord of Glory hung on a cross, who rose again in the same body he died in.

"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you."
(Rom 8:7-11 ESV)

Mortal bodies with life through the Spirit....Just what I was saying all along.

Here is an interesting appraisal from another place...[/color]

http://www.bibleforums.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9675&goto=nextnewest

It sounds like those people agree with you, which is unfortunate--neo-gnosticism is obviously alive and well. :shrug: Since we are hurling URLs, have a look here:

http://metalutheran.blogspot.com/2004/12/evangelicals-vs-incarnation.html

And

http://confessingevangelical.blogspot.com/2004/12/still-flowing-blood-of-risen-christ.html

[VFarris01]

Wow! Such ranting and raving. Seriously, have you been taking your medication?
Nope, I don't need to, and I still do not see you addressing any issues, just adding more material. And it is amusing to see you fall on your false-hermeneutical sword once again. Also, you still will not deal with the grammar in 1 John 4:2-3, because you simply can't, and you prefer to change the subject and mis-interpret St. Paul to fit your spiritual speculations.You have not been taking your medication! Quick! Call the Pope; I am sure he will give you some of his.

Are not 1, 2, & 3 John books your hero M.L. would have had removed from the Bible.

Greek is a difficult language indeed to translate into English. Interesting how when the Greek fails to meet your expectations (i.e. Matthew 16:18, "thou art Peter...") you must resort to various linguistic contortions in order for make it fit your preconceived notion of what it should say as you do here.

Not all usages of "is come" G2064 are fixated to mean "always."


(43) When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. (44) Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come (G2064), he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. (45) Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.(emphasis mine, VF)


If G2064 means permanant here why does he leave?


(12) But I say unto you, That Elias is come (G2064) already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. (emphasis mine, VF)
If G2064 means permanant here, where is Elias now?

(16) But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come (G2064) unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. (emphasis mine, VF)

I suppose here the children will never be able to leave!

When the plain language is figurative (i.e., Matthew 26:26, "this is My body...," et.al.) you look for ways to make the figurative fit your literal mold.

In like manner, if a Greek word does not always mean permanant, you look for ways to make the obviously temporary fit your permanant mold.

You also completely dropped the topic of whether it is meaningful to talk about human nature without reference to a real human body. It is because you cannot do so--it makes a hash of your speculations regarding Jesus' body--
I suppose that when I observe my dogs acting in a way we reserve for human behavior they are somehow in posession of a real human body.
--and so you want to bring in new material--a habit everyone who denies the Real Presence indulges in here on this thread! A very interesting thing indeed.
Since when is the Bible "new material?" I thought the Bible is what we were discussing!!

As I recall, you (and your cronies) are the one who started bringing extra-Biblical material (the so-called ECF's, of which there are no such thing asside from Jesus and the Apostles) into the discussion! A very interesting thing indeed!

Interesting, when I (or someone who disagrees with you) bring in "new material" I (we) are indulging a habit, but, when you or your cronies do the same thing you are somehow including insightful commentary.
Here is what Paul has to say about our "raised" bodies:

(35) But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what manner of body do they come? (36) Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened except it die: (37) and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind; (38) but God giveth it a body even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own. (39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. (40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial (heavenly bodies and earthly bodies in the KJV, VF): but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (41) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. (42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (43) it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: (44) it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (emphasis and coments mine, VF)

What is this! You "preach" we will have a human body in heaven, but Paul disagrees with you does he not? Natural body = human body, spiritual body (G4152) = spirit body. These my good friend ARE NOT the same.
Ah, hermeneutics by keyword! Unfortunately key-word searches do not give us any insight as to what St. Paul is saying, do they?

Let's look again. According to you St. Paul means that our bodies are spiritual and not material. But once again you do not see the forest for the trees. In St. Paul's writings natural often stands for our sinful pre-regenerated flesh. How do we know this? Because in several places St. Paul says as much, that the natural man cannot understand the things of God until God regenerates him, then he is a spiritual person:

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one."
(1Co 2:14-15 ESV)

So, there is a natural man and a spiritual man, the difference is whether or not he is regenerated, not of whether or not he has a body--unless you want to assert that Christians do not have bodies today, or that Christians today are not spiritual persons. Only a true gnostic would then conclude that after we become "spiritual persons" that we no longer have human bodies, or that somehow our bodies are not redeemed as well.

"Spiritual body" is akin to "A spiritual person", not a different kind of body all together--it is one alive and infused with the Holy Spirit and so is the most real, alive body we can possibly have.

"For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit."
(Rom 7:5-6 ESV)

We see the same thing at work here, O Exegete. Living in the flesh is living in sin, but not because flesh itself is evil, otherwise Jesus Christ would not have assumed flesh! (That is another ancient gnostic heresy BTW, matter is evil and so the Logos, who is spirit, would not assume a true material body. There are echoes of this in your doctrines of Jesus' present body.) The Spirit brings new life, and so our persons, which by nature includes our bodies, are "spiritual" because we are alive and not dead in trespasses and sins, "fleshly." "Spiritual", "pneuma", "breath", life. Our present bodies are not fully redeemed, but when we are raised again in our present bodies they will be fully "spiritual" because they will be more fully alive than is possible this side of the Eschathon.

Regarding different glories, so what? The incorruptable, glorified resurrection body is different in just that way--incorruptability. Jesus Christ will undo the corruption Adam brought into the world for all those who believe. Also, the "its" (it is sown in corruption..it is raised in glory...) all refer to the same body, which is plain as day if you were a more careful exegete. Nothing here says that we receive new "spiritual" bodies that are not organically connected with our present fleshly bodies, your secret gnosis notwithstanding.

Doing a search on the words "spirit" or "spiritual" and drawing conclusions because they may be forced into your theological framework is a very, very sloppy hermeneutic--which is unfortunately par for you.Wow! Talk about not bringing in new material! Or is it insightful commentary? And out of context as you are well aware.

Had I been doing a "keyword serch" I might have included more than one cite.

On the one hand, in an earlier instance we have you saying plain language says just what it says (what the meaning of "is" is) and then on the other hand saying plain language does not mean what it says. As in the past you want to have it both ways.

Note how many words you had to waste in order to perform the contortions necessary to make the clear words of Paul mean what you need them to mean to support your contention (as well as the "new" material you included).
(45) So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (46) Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. (47) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. (48) As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. (49) And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

V49, We will no longer have an earthly image (that is human) but will take on a heavenly image (that is spirit).
Once again, you utterly fail to see what St. Paul is saying. For St. Paul in this passage, "earthly" means sinful because the creation is corrupted by sin, and so anything that comes from creation is subject to sin and death (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%208:19-21;&version=47;)--"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--"(Rom 5:12 ESV) Heaven is not subject to sin, and so those from heaven are not subject to sin and death, which is why it is necessary for a savior to come from incorruptable to save the corruptable.
(50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Wait a minute! Have you not said all along we will still have a flesh and blood body albiet a glorified flesh and blood body at the resurrection? Sorry, only spirit may inherit (be allowed in) heaven! Jesus cannot have (inhabit) a human body (even a glorified one because His glorified body would still be flesh and blood; right?) in heaven for this very reason.
And once again, in your over-gnosticized, key-word hermeneutic you do not see what is going on. Flesh and blood refers to pre-regenerated people, not material bodies. Why? Because our present bodies are corrupt--we die. But we will put on incorruptable bodies, which are also material and which have intimate connections with our present bodies. So our present, sinful selves cannot inherit God's Kingdom, but our regenerated, "spiritual" (remember our discussion above?) selves will receive the kingdom of God. All the while we remain humans, with human natures that by definition have bodies.
(51) Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, (52) in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (54) But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
Nothing here contradicts anything I have said.Here I was simply completing the paragraph. Only you would waste words attacking nothing.

But, since you brought it up, what does changed mean here? The only incorruptible "entity" ever mentioned in the Bible is that of a SPIRIT.
Paul says this at a later time:

(14) For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; (15) and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again. (16) Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.

Christ is NO LONGER flesh and blood but something else. I am not making this up... this is what Paul said!
What a hoot! You really don't know what you are doing! Remember what "flesh" means when St. Paul talks about these things? Do you really want to posit Christians who do not have bodies, like you want to posit a human nature without a human body? All this do deny Jesus' plain words "This is my body.." simply because it contradicts your gnosticized, dualistic interpretation of the Pauline corpus?

What does "know him according to the flesh" mean? How about those who know Jesus as an executed criminal, or a wise man! This is what the "fleshly" man will see because the things of God are undiscernable foolishness to him, but the "spiritual" man will see the Lord of Glory hung on a cross, who rose again in the same body he died in.

"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you."
(Rom 8:7-11 ESV)

Mortal bodies with life through the Spirit....Just what I was saying all along.
Wow! Talk about not bringing in new material! Or is it insightful commentary?

And out of context (or is it with your own desire to change its meaning) as well. For instance, using your last Scripture of Romans 8:7-11, Paul is not saying here what you would have us think. He is saying in essence, "we cannot take it with us to Heaven." The flesh here is in reference to Earthly things whereas the spirit is in reference to Heavenly things. But you did not notice the difference because you are set in a total RC (Lutheran) way of thinking.

A physical human body weather "corruptible" or "incorruptible," my dear friend, is an earthly thing.

[Pythagoras]

Jesus immediately clears any doubts in John 6:63. His words are spiritual.



"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. "

It takes an impossible twisting of scripture (not to mention defiance of common sense) to suggest Jesus was speaking literally when He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Otherwise Jesus would have chopped off portions of His literal flesh and siphoned off some of His blood at the Last Supper and bid His apostles feed. But He doesn't do that does He?

The Catholic makes our Lord out to be a liar; for on the one hand Jesus intends His apostles to literally feast on Him , yet come crunch time, He only offers them symbols like bread and blood at the Last Supper. Why not eradicate any doubts about the matter and make His intentions perfectly clear to future generations by offering them portions of His literal self? Yet not one drop of Jesus' blood was spilled at the Last Supper . Therefore by making it an unbloody Last Supper, Jesus sends us a strong signal that His words in this matter are spiritual and not literal. He says as much in John 6:63! Yet the Catholic doesn't wish to understand. The wine at the Last Supper was just that , wine, and the bread was simply bread.

You see, the bread and wine of the Last supper, if it be construed to be literal flesh and blood of Jesus , would been ineffectual at that point in time because Jesus hadn't spilled his blood on the cross for our salvation yet.



In John chapter 3 Jesus uses the exact language / synthax as John 6:63 when educating Nicodemus. Nicodemus need not enter his mother's womb a second time to be born again anymore than His disciples need consume His literal flesh/blood to be in Him..

These are spiritual matters; the flesh counts for nothing.

John 3:5,

"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the spirit. flesh gives birth to flesh, but the spirit gives birth to spirit."

God Bless,

[Jawa Man]

I was trying to do the first part, but I think I might end up saying something wrong, so I'll leave it to the veterans of the thread!

Otherwise Jesus would have chopped off portions of His literal flesh and siphoned off some of His blood at the Last Supper and bid His apostles feed. But He doesn't do that does He?
Did you notice that the section that addresses Jesus saying, "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood," is right after the miracle of feeding the 5000? Jesus, from only a few things, feeds a huge amount of people. What is stopping Him from feeding us with His flesh, since He is God and can distribute the Bread of Life, which is Himself?

The Catholic makes our Lord out to be a liar; for on the one hand Jesus intends His apostles to literally feast on Him , yet come crunch time, He only offers them symbols like bread and blood at the Last Supper.
That's circular reasoning; you're saying, if I'm reading this correctly, "Jesus did not say to eat Him because the Last Supper was made up of symbols, and we know these were symbols because Jesus did not say to eat Him..." How do you know these are just symbols when Jesus doesn't say so at the Last Supper?

Why not eradicate any doubts about the matter and make His intentions perfectly clear to future generations by offering them portions of His literal self? Yet not one drop of Jesus' blood was spilled at the Last Supper.
Why didn't God just make it easier for us to believe and appear to everyone on earth so they couldn't doubt Him? If you don't ask that, then it wouldn't be right to ask why He didn't make His intentions perfectly clear over the Eucharist.

Therefore by making it an unbloody Last Supper, Jesus sends us a strong signal that His words in this matter are spiritual and not literal. He says as much in John 6:63! Yet the Catholic doesn't wish to understand. The wine at the Last Supper was just that , wine, and the bread was simply bread.
You're doing circular reasoning again. What if they weren't symbols but the wine and the bread were Him?

You see, the bread and wine of the Last supper, if it be construed to be literal flesh and blood of Jesus , would been ineffectual at that point in time because Jesus hadn't spilled his blood on the cross for our salvation yet.
What evidence do you have that it would be ineffectual before the Cross? Does the Bible say anything about it?

In John chapter 3 Jesus uses the exact language / synthax as John 6:63 when educating Nicodemus. Nicodemus need not enter his mother's womb a second time to be born again anymore than His disciples need consume His literal flesh/blood to be in Him..These are spiritual matters; the flesh counts for nothing.

This supports the Real Presence, though. Nicodemus needed to be born not as something of this earth, which is perishable flesh, but needed to be born again to receive imperishable flesh on the Last Day. The Real Presence is this, too. If Jesus gave us perishable flesh to eat, it wouldn't help us, because perishable flesh... perishes. But Jesus gives us His imperishable flesh that we will receive the likeness of on the Last Day, if He chooses to save us.

[Jawa Man]

Sorry, I just wanted to add one more thing.

If the Eucharist is a mere symbol, so is the second birth. So let's say Jesus meant that the flesh is of no avail, as in, His glorified flesh will not help, but His words giving Spirit and life. But, by the same logic the second birth will only be able to give birth to us spiritually and symbolically, and we will not inherit glorified bodies on the last day (since the flesh is of no avail). But how can this be if, being born again, we are made a part of the eternal promise of a new body? So just as body and soul both participate in the second birth, so body and soul participate in the Eucharist.

I guess this would also be a good way to start an argument on the necessity of baptism, but this isn't the right thread.

[VFarris01]

RP fanatics, please answer the questions posed in this post... they are highlighted for your convenience... (for the most part these are yes/no questions but a simple explanation would help immensely.)

Earlier, I posted the definitions for "real" and "presence" and noted, "Either the body and blood of Jesus is REALLY PRESENT in communion or the body and blood of Jesus REALLY IS NOT PRESENT in communion." Which is it? Is this a false dichotomy? How so?

Is Jesus’ body and blood REALLY PRESENT in communion because He said “is” when “performing” the “last supper?”

If Jesus is REALLY PRESENT in the communion it would seem He has made His return as fortold in Acts 1:11; could this be true? Why have we not seen Him? Hypothesize.

Where is “mystery” or “mystical” used in the Bible to describe (in conjunction with) the changing of bread and juice into flesh and blood? If it is a "mystery" as to how the bread and juice are changed into flesh and blood without a physical change the writers of the Bible never discuss it.

Where does it say in the Bible we are to "submit" (that is be subservient; compliant; submissive; differential; acquiescent; to) ourselves to the "church?" (FYI, Hebrews 13:17 is not about the "church" it is about individuals. Certainly the church is made of of individuals, however, Hebrews 13 addressed specific individuals.)

What Christ told (and tells) us is to take into our bodies is His WORD (See John 5:24, John 8:31-52, and John 14:23 These verses are in no way figurative BTW.). Do you not think this could be the symbolism behind the "last supper?"

If someone holds up a piece of bread and says of it "this is my body" and NOTHING HAPPENS (that is, the bread still looks like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread, sounds like bread, and tastes like bread), this, my friends, is speaking figuratively. Under "normal" circumstances is this not always true? Explain why this instance is different.

Was Jesus performing a miracle at the "last supper?"

If Jesus is performing a miracle by saying the bread and juice is His body and blood why is this the only recorded miracle in the Bible in which NOTHING HAPPENED? Hypothesize.

1 Corinthians 10:16 MKJV The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?Pay attention folks, the words are "communion of" not "communion in."

Perhaps "we" should take notice of how often Jesus uses the syllogism of bread to teach His disciples.

Matthew 16:5-12 MKJV (5) And when His disciples had come to the other side, they forgot to take loaves. (6) And Jesus said to them, Take heed, and beware the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (7) And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no loaves. (8) And knowing Jesus said to them, Why do you reason among yourselves because you took no loaves, little-faiths? (9) Do you not yet understand, nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many hand baskets you took up; (10) nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many lunch baskets you took up? (11) How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about loaves, but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? (12) Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.Compare Mark 8:15-21.

Matthew 4:4, compare Luke 4:4.

Matthew 15:25-28

John 6 (we have discussed this passage... perhaps we should again).

I just cannot imagine why Jesus would speak figuratively in these passages and not be speaking figuratively at the "last supper." It must be a "mystery." Seems to me from reading Matthew 16:5-12, Mark 8:15-21, and John 6 the disciples were "stupid" and had a difficult time figuring out when Jesus was speaking figuratively and when He was not... Do you have the same difficulty? :argh:

If someone says something is something it is not they are speaking figuratively. :bonk:

[Pythagoras]

Hi JawaMan,


Did you notice that the section that addresses Jesus saying, "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood," is right after the miracle of feeding the 5000?

Remember in this miracle Jesus fed them fish also, and no wine. You inadvertantly proved symbolism. Otherwise what’s the fish to be literally construed as? Or are we to adopt the illogical position that part of that miracle was symbolic(the fish part) and part literal(the bread part)?



That's circular reasoning; you're saying, if I'm reading this correctly, "Jesus did not say to eat Him because the Last Supper was made up of symbols,



You're not reading correctly. Jesus did not say to eat Him literally.


and we know these were symbols because Jesus did not say to eat Him..."

What are you talking about ? Listen carefully: Jesus told us to eat the bread which symbolized His flesh and drink the wine which symbolized His blood. We are to do this as a remembrance. The literal eating othe the mere bread and wine is not effacicous for salvation. We must consume Him spiritually by putting our faith in Him.


How do you know these are just symbols when Jesus doesn't say so at the Last Supper?

From the context of the text , from John 6:63 and from common sense.Jesus also called Himself a vine with branches(etc.). How do we know not to take Him literally here? Or are we to take Him literally in this instance also?


Why didn't God just make it easier for us to believe and appear to everyone on earth so they couldn't doubt Him? If you don't ask that, then it wouldn't be right to ask why He didn't make His intentions perfectly clear over the Eucharist.

Youre missing the point. Jesus made His intentions absolutely clear. He tells us in John 6:63 that His words are not literal but spiritual. He also does not chop off chunks of his literal flesh at the Last Supper.

[Maxentius]

Greek is a difficult language indeed to translate into English. Interesting how when the Greek fails to meet your expectations (i.e. Matthew 16:18, "thou art Peter...") you must resort to various linguistic contortions in order for make it fit your preconceived notion of what it should say as you do here.

Not all usages of "is come" G2064 are fixated to mean "always."

.......When the plain language is figurative (i.e., Matthew 26:26, "this is My body...," et.al.) you look for ways to make the figurative fit your literal mold.

In like manner, if a Greek word does not always mean permanant, you look for ways to make the obviously temporary fit your permanant mold.[/QUOTE]

Do not bother to use an English interpretation. "is come" is not necessary for my point. Also, I see you are back to your mantra!

Also, see this web site:

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm

Money Quote: "Imperfect Tense
The imperfect tense shows continuous or linear type of action just like the present tense. It always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.
The idea of continual action in the past does not apply when the verb "to be" is in the imperfect tense. There it should be considered a simple action happening in past time, without regard to its "on-going" or "repeated happening" in the past.

For example: "For you were once darkness, but now light in the Lord." Eph 5:8 "

And finally, none of your quotes necessarily imply a completed, stopped action. You are therefore still left without Scriptural supprort and must therefore posit multiple incarnations.

I suppose that when I observe my dogs acting in a way we reserve for human behavior they are somehow in posession of a real human body.

So, you can't answer the point, and then introduce more irrelevancies. Look, you deny the Incarnation because you want to have a "spiritual" Christ--that is your business. The fact you don't bother to answer my points but instead use riduculous examples like that above shows you really don't know what you are doing. So, here is how easy it is to dispose of your "point" above. When we say a dog acts like a human being, we do not have some Platinic ideal of human beings in mine, but our actual experiences of flesh and blood human beings, that we see the dog imitating. Even emotions are not "spiritual" but psych-somatic, i.e. they also depend on our bodies.

As I recall, you (and your cronies) are the one who started bringing extra-Biblical material (the so-called ECF's, of which there are no such thing asside from Jesus and the Apostles) into the discussion! A very interesting thing indeed!

Three points.

First. You always let things drop and then try to change the subject to one you believe will allow you to argue more strongly..

Second, another "I know you are but what am I moment" from you.

Third, unless you want to argue from the original manuscripts, you are in the same boat as I am regarding quoting experts, and I don't see why the ECFs are worse than Mr. Schofield, whom you quote even if you don't realize it. I will take the ECFs over him any day!

Note how many words you had to waste in order to perform the contortions necessary to make the clear words of Paul mean what you need them to mean to support your contention (as well as the "new" material you included).

And note that you do not bother to refute anything, you just say, simplistically, that if an explanation is not consice enough it must be wrong. This is why your hermeneutic, which finally brings you to deny the Incarnation, is so silly.

The flesh here is in reference to Earthly things whereas the spirit is in reference to Heavenly things. But you did not notice the difference because you are set in a total RC (Lutheran) way of thinking.

[color=black]A physical human body weather "corruptible" or "incorruptible," my dear friend, is an earthly thing.


Actually, thst dichotomy was exactly what I was talking about. But you are such a good exegete that you missed it.

Anyway, those very earthly things will be rejeuvinated, because God will save his whole creation. (Rom 8:19) That by definition includes material things, and our bodies are material things. If our present bodies are not raised God did not redeem our bodies from sin and death, instead he gave us a new "coat."

[Jawa Man]

Hi JawaMan
Sup homie!

Remember in this miracle Jesus fed them fish also, and no wine. You inadvertantly proved symbolism. Otherwise what’s the fish to be literally construed as? Or are we to adopt the illogical position that part of that miracle was symbolic(the fish part) and part literal(the bread part)?
No, I think you're just misunderstanding. I only meant that this explains how Jesus can distribute His body and blood to others without having to slice off a piece of himself each time. He showed this through that miracle. I mentioned the Bread of Life only because that's what Jesus calls Himself in the following section, not to say that the bread in that miracle was His body.

You're not reading correctly. Jesus did not say to eat Him literally.
Didn't I just say that? Look again: "Jesus did not say to eat Him because the Last Supper was made up of symbols..." That quote is basically just what you said.

What are you talking about ? Listen carefully: Jesus told us to eat the bread which symbolized His flesh and drink the wine which symbolized His blood.
When did he ever say it was a symbol? I can only see Him saying, at least, it is spiritual. Spiritual is not symbolic (see end of post).

Anyway, here's still where you're going, to me: You say, "Jesus said the Eucharist was symbolic. This is shown in the Last Supper, because used symbols, not real flesh and blood. And we know these were symbols because obviously we're not really eating Jesus." That's called circular reasoning.

From the context of the text
The context of the text? Could you explain this more?

from John 6:63
That I said I didn't want to address because I'm not sure if my resolution would be 100% heresy free (edit: but I ended up doing it at the end of the post anyway).

and from common sense.
Tell that to John the Apostle's disciple, Ignatius:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,44 because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death45 in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,46 that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of47 them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.48 But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Your 'common sense' against John's disciple.

Jesus also called Himself a vine with branches(etc.). How do we know not to take Him literally here? Or are we to take Him literally in this instance also
Since there has been no historical issue over the vine passage being literal (afaik) I don't see a reason to take it literally. However, because the Church has always taught the Real Presence, there is a much greater reason for at least considering it could be true.

Youre missing the point. Jesus made His intentions absolutely clear. He tells us in John 6:63 that His words are not literal but spiritual. He also does not chop off chunks of his literal flesh at the Last Supper.
It was absolutely clear to the Church for over 1500 years. And by the way, the opposite of literal is not spiritual. Spiritual means the non-physical stuff while symbolism means something that represents another. You have to at least accept Jesus was speaking spiritually (not metaphorically), which would mean spiritually the Eucharist is effected. That's why it's not unreasonable to think Jesus spiritually changes the bread and wine to be His glorified flesh and blood, which are not comparable with regular flesh (the flesh does not avail because it perishes, while Jesus' flesh will not perish).

[Pythagoras]

Hi Java man,



You're doing circular reasoning again. What if they weren't symbols but the wine and the bread were Him?



Now you are straining creduality. At the Last Supper Jesus was there with His apostles. He was separate from the wine and bread. He broke the bread , He handed it to the apostles. He drank the wine. Was Jesus drinking Himself? . The Catholic Churchs’ is a thought pocess of psychotics, since everything(at the Last Supper) is not what it appears to be. The Bible gives us absolutely no hint that this is the case. A miracle must work within the bounds of verifiable reality, I will stress this in a minute.


What evidence do you have that it would be ineffectual before the Cross? Does the Bible say anything about it?


Yes, the Bible says “without the shedding of blood there is no salvation.”(Hebrews 9:22)


This supports the Real Presence, though. Nicodemus needed to be born not as something of this earth, which is perishable flesh, but needed to be born again to receive imperishable flesh on the Last Day.


Now you're making a case for symbolism.


The Real Presence is this, too. If Jesus gave us perishable flesh to eat, it wouldn't help us, because perishable flesh... perishes


If the bread was Jesus' literal flesh, it would go into the tummy and some of it's components be excreted the next day. Why no worship the residue of this sacred wafer when it falls into the toilet bowl early next day?


But Jesus gives us His imperishable flesh that we will receive the likeness of on the Last Day, if He chooses to save us.




That's why the Catholic wafer cannot be the literal body of Christ as it perishes. Some of it ends up in your toilet bowl. Yuo could eat a thousand wafers at a sitting butther won't do you any good. Could make you fat though!We must consume Him spiritually by putting our faith in Him.

The Catholic cannot deny that on the face of it the claim of transubstantiation seems preposterous. There is no detectable change in wafer or wine after they presumably have been transformed through the priest’s unique power into Christ’s literal body and blood. How then can one be certain this alleged “miracle” has occurred?



Those who reject the fantasy of transubstantiation are accused of not believing in “miracles” or in God’s omnipotence. “Well He’s god isn’t He. He can do anything” But that’s circular reasoning. Yes with God all things are possible(matt. 19:26). Even that statement, however, must be defined by the nature of God and of reality.God cannot become a demon or Satan, nor can He lie(Titus 1:2). Nor could god become the universe, for by His very nature He is separate and distinct from the universe and pantheism is therefore impossible.



Likewise a miracle must function within the bounds of verifiable reality. A wafer which has been transformed/turned into (or what not) Christ’s body and blood lacks the essential of a miracle:to be recognizable and thereby bring glory to God. Since the wafer and wine remain unchanged, the alleged miracle remains unseen. But a miracle must be observable( the lame walk, the blind see, the storm is instantly calmed, the dead come to life upon command, etc.) or else no one knows it has taken place and thus no one can give glory to God.



The Catholic position is similar to a Buddhist woman I met years ago. The poor woman was convinced her dead son had returned to her in the form of a salamander(and her priests seconed her belief). When I asked her why, she said it was due to reincarnation and karma. But there’s no possible way to varify her claim. On the face of it it sounds preposterous. Same with the Catholic fantasy of transubstantiation.



God Bless and no offense,

[Maxentius]

Hey Jawa,

Don't worry about being wrong. :smile: This is a good place to burn dross away from our beliefs--steel sharpens steel! I usually fnd that my beliefs are stronger after I discuss with a good "opponent".

Sorry, I just wanted to add one more thing.
But, by the same logic the second birth will only be able to give birth to us spiritually and symbolically, and we will not inherit glorified bodies on the last day (since the flesh is of no avail). But how can this be if, being born again, we are made a part of the eternal promise of a new body? So just as body and soul both participate in the second birth, so body and soul participate in the Eucharist.

It is quite simple actually. VFarris (I am pretty sure of his belief, but not pythagoras') believes that our new bodies are "spiritual", not like the bodies we have now. He even apparently believes that human nature can be divorced from human bodies--a very un-Hebrew, but very Greek, notion. (If you ever took an introductory philosophy course, try to think of the Platonic Ideal; Human nature is the "essence" of humanity, but it exists as an ideal--our bodies are accidental to that ideal and so they may fall short of the "ideal" "humanity".) So for him, it would follow that the rebirth is "spiritual" alone. Therefore baptism is "spiritual" and need not be accompanied by water, that is "water" baptism which is a sign that points to the ideal of the spiritual reality that has already happened. It also follows that if the resurrection is in a "spiritual" body, that Jesus Christ does not have a body--and so it is impossible for him to share it in his supper. I think he is very, very wrong, but his position is internally consistent.

[Pythagoras]

Java man,


It's way past my bed time.I will tackle you tomorrow, rest assured.

Don't be like the Buddhist woman!... And don't twist scripture to fit your needs.

Good night.

[Jawa Man]

Now you are straining creduality. At the Last Supper Jesus was there with His apostles. He was separate from the wine and bread. He broke the bread , He handed it to the apostles. He drank the wine. Was Jesus drinking Himself? . The Catholic Churchs’ is a thought pocess of psychotics, since everything(at the Last Supper) is not what it appears to be. The Bible gives us absolutely no hint that this is the case.
No hint? Not even when Jesus says...
Take, eat, this is My body, which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of Me. This is the new covenant in My blood; drink you all of it.

That sounds like a hint to me!

Yes, the Bible says “without the shedding of blood there is no salvation.”(Hebrews 9:22)
The Eucharist does not provide salvation, so this isn't an issue.

Now you're making a case for symbolism.
I'm making the case for spiritualism. ;) Symbolic does not equal spiritual.

If the bread was Jesus' literal flesh, it would go into the tummy and some of it's components be excreted the next day. Why no worship the residue of this sacred wafer when it falls into the toilet bowl early next day?
This is ridiculous. You must have spent two seconds thinking about this before you typed it up. There are plenty of things I could say, but it would all be speculation as far as I'm concerned, but that's all your question needs for an answer. I can tell you what I don't have to speculate about though, thanks to Church tradition, that through this Jesus dwells in me. And asking me to worship my doodoo is like telling me to look for all the dead skin cells that flaked off of Jesus while in Palestine and worship them. That's like, blasphemy.

That's why the Catholic wafer cannot be the literal body of Christ as it perishes.
Really, so Jesus is up in Heaven decaying now?

In the New Jerusalem maybe we'll have some fruit trees, and since death is gone, they will not die. But when we eat of its fruit, won't the fruit be digested and decomposed in us? Yes! But does that make the tree perishable? No! It will live forever and forever provide fruit. Who knows if skin cells will still shed in the New Jerusalem?

Some of it ends up in your toilet bowl. Yuo could eat a thousand wafers at a sitting butther won't do you any good. Could make you fat though!We must consume Him spiritually by putting our faith in Him.
We consume Him spiritually the way He set up... this is my Body, broken for you, this is the cup of the new covenant of my blood, drink you all of it. And Paul tells us to do this with a pure conscience, otherwise we eat and drink condemnation upon ourselves, being guilty of the Lord's body. And he even provides evidence that some people had been doing it unworthily, and were getting sick and dying. This is a lesson for us.

The Catholic cannot deny that on the face of it the claim of transubstantiation seems preposterous. There is no detectable change in wafer or wine after they presumably have been transformed through the priest’s unique power into Christ’s literal body and blood. How then can one be certain this alleged “miracle” has occurred?
Jesus' words affirm that a miracle takes place. Unlike the Catholics, though, I don't hold to transubstantiation, I merely believe that what Jesus said would happen happens. I'm a wannabe Eastern Orthodox.

Those who reject the fantasy of transubstantiation are accused of not believing in “miracles” or in God’s omnipotence. “Well He’s god isn’t He. He can do anything” But that’s circular reasoning. Yes with God all things are possible(matt. 19:26). Even that statement, however, must be defined by the nature of God and of reality.God cannot become a demon or Satan, nor can He lie(Titus 1:2). Nor could god become the universe, for by His very nature He is separate and distinct from the universe and pantheism is therefore impossible. Likewise a miracle must function within the bounds of verifiable reality. A wafer which has been transformed/turned into (or what not) Christ’s body and blood lacks the essential of a miracle:to be recognizable and thereby bring glory to God. Since the wafer and wine remain unchanged, the alleged miracle remains unseen. But a miracle must be observable( the lame walk, the blind see, the storm is instantly calmed, the dead come to life upon command, etc.) or else no one knows it has taken place and thus no one can give glory to God.
If it's not observable, how come the Church and not you have seen this miracle taking place for 2000 years? Maybe somethings are left to be seen with the heart.

The Catholic position is similar to a Buddhist woman I met years ago. The poor woman was convinced her dead son had returned to her in the form of a salamander(and her priests seconed her belief). When I asked her why, she said it was due to reincarnation and karma. But there’s no possible way to varify her claim. On the face of it it sounds preposterous. Same with the Catholic fantasy of transubstantiation.
Tell that to Ignatius, who considered it sinful to deny the Real Presence.

And, okay, continue tomorrow!

[Jawa Man]

Max, I wrote my opinion on John 6 right before you made your post, at the end of my post, about symbolism and spirit.

[VFarris01]

I see you are back to your mantra!And one you have yet to address I might add. Who brought in new materal and ignored the old? It was YOU my friend!
Money Quote: "Imperfect Tense
The imperfect tense shows continuous or linear type of action just like the present tense. It always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.
The idea of continual action in the past does not apply when the verb "to be" is in the imperfect tense. There it should be considered a simple action happening in past time, without regard to its "on-going" or "repeated happening" in the past.

For example: "For you were once darkness, but now light in the Lord." Eph 5:8 "

And finally, none of your quotes necessarily imply a completed, stopped action. You are therefore still left without Scriptural supprort and must therefore posit multiple incarnations.The "children" of Luke 16:18 could come to Jesus, go away, then come back; in a like manner Jesus came to Earth, went to Heaven, and will come back the same as He left. What part of your fascination with Greek leaves us to believe He was NOT spirit (conversely, WAS flesh) in "His Father's" presence?