Argument in Defense of the Real Presence

[elysian]

Lutherans have taught the doctrine of the Real Presence in Holy Communion (consubstantiation) since the Reformation. I have long agreed with this stance: Jesus' Body and Blood are present simply because He said so and that when we partake of His Supper we partake of His Body and His Blood.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. Mark 14:22-24 (NIV)

Jesus doesn't tell us how, just simply that it is.

In a battle between reason and Scripture, Scripture (especially the words of Jesus) has the upper hand. We believe it because Jesus said it is so.
The "how" is a mystery, a mystery that is entrusted to God Who can do ALL things.

This is a great article in defense of the Real Presence (http://www.discernment.org/responding_to_the_real_presence.htm) from a non-Lutheran perspective.

[spl_cadet]

Good article!

[elysian]

Amazing how people have trouble with the word "is." Jesus said "this is My Body" and "this is my Blood." How this happens is a mystery, but if we believe Him don't we need to take Him at His word?

When I was going through Adult Catechism (I wasn't confirmed until I was 20) our Pastor took a great deal of time in explaining the Real Presence. It is remarkably similar to the RC teaching but since many of the people in our class were new Christians I am grateful he spent so much time explaining and answering our questions.

With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive. From Luther's Large Catechism, "On the Sacrament of the Altar"

[Jezz]

Good article!
Here, here! And what's even more amazing about it is that it doesn't even rely on what I consider to be the strongest evidence for the Real Presence: the unanimous teaching of the ECFs.

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.

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone.

Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

The list goes on and on and on. I do not have time to sort through more; the interested reader can look here (http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html) for many more examples.

There are (to my knowledge) no examples of any Christian teaching anything other than Real Presence for the first 500 years of Christianity at least - and I suspect possibly much longer. Anyone who tries to foist a non-Real Presence interpretation of the Eucharist onto the text is engaging in eisegesis, not exegesis. They are inventing their own Christianity, rather than trying to follow the Christianity that Christ Himself founded.

[spl_cadet]

The wonder of course is that all these people aren't Catholic, since we're the ones holding faithfully to transubstantiation :tongue:

[themuzicman]

What's really odd is that none of these articles deal with the fact that Jesus hadn't even died, yet, and He didn't tear off a piece of His body to give to them, but tore up a piece of store bought bread.

What is really interesting is that the bread was made without yeast. Yeast is consistently used for corruption and sin. Thus "this is my body", to the disciples, would have clearly meant that He was saying that He was without sin, and that they were be partakers of His body, not by eating it, but by salvation, such that He was their sacrifice for sin, and that they were to belong to Him, that they were now His body, as we see Paul articulating very clearly in 1 Cor 12 and Gal 2:20-22, among other places.

Furthermore, you'll note that "This is my blood of the Covenant, which is poured out for you." (Mat 26:28) Notice that the blood has to be poured out for them. It had not been poured out at the last supper, so it could not be that blood.

If you study covenant in the OT, you find that covenant is always associated with blood. Abraham cut animals in half, Noah sacrificed one of the clean animals, sacrifice was a regular part of the Mosaic covenant, and what Christ was saying here wasn't that they would be literally drinking His blood, but that a New Covenant, established with His blood was about to come to be, and that is how the disciples would have understood it. They knew what covenant was and how it was established.

So, let's not take this as a Greek would understand it, but as a Hebrew would understand it. Bread without yeast and blood of the covenant are very clear to them.

Michael

[Jezz]

What's really odd is that none of these articles deal with the fact that Jesus hadn't even died, yet, and He didn't tear off a piece of His body to give to them, but tore up a piece of store bought bread.
Kinda like how it was odd that He only tore up 5 loaves and 2 fish, and somehow 5000 men + women and children managed to eat their fill. That was quite odd. Or like that time when He instructed His disciples to fill the water jars with water, and then when the servers served from it it was wine. Hmmm - odd. And then there was that time where He was crucified, and on the 3rd day after His death He got up and started walking around again. Really odd stuff.

Yes, it was odd that Jesus could offer His disciples His flesh to eat, while He was still standing there alive in front of them. That's our Jesus for ya - He did seem to have a knack for doing odd things. That's what made Him special.

You're not claiming that Real Presence is impossible simply because it was "odd", are you?

What is really interesting is that the bread was made without yeast. Yeast is consistently used for corruption and sin. Thus "this is my body", to the disciples, would have clearly meant that He was saying that He was without sin, and that they were be partakers of His body, not by eating it, but by salvation, such that He was their sacrifice for sin, and that they were to belong to Him, that they were now His body, as we see Paul articulating very clearly in 1 Cor 12 and Gal 2:20-22, among other places.
No, "this is my body" would clearly mean "this stuff here, that I hold in my hand - this stuff is my body. Not something else - this stuff.

Furthermore, you'll note that "This is my blood of the Covenant, which is poured out for you." (Mat 26:28) Notice that the blood has to be poured out for them. It had not been poured out at the last supper, so it could not be that blood.
Your objection begs the question because it assumes that the blood that Jesus was referring to was not the blood in the cup. In fact, it was the contents of the cup that Jesus was referring to when He said "this is my blood". And that which was in the cup had indeed been poured out. How else do you think the wine got into the cup? :doh:

You're also committing the first sin of exegesis, which is to make tricky arguments based on things like tense from an English translation. The word translated "poured out" is not actually a verb in the Greek, but a present passive participle. Being a present participle, it has a continuous aspect - ie, it denotes an ongoing action at the time of speaking. In other words, as Jesus was speaking, the "pouring out" of the blood was actually happening. It wasn't going to happen in the future, and it hadn't happened in the past, or at some other unspecified time (all of which use different tenses for the participle) - it was happening now.

If you study covenant in the OT, you find that covenant is always associated with blood. Abraham cut animals in half, Noah sacrificed one of the clean animals, sacrifice was a regular part of the Mosaic covenant, and what Christ was saying here wasn't that they would be literally drinking His blood, but that a New Covenant, established with His blood was about to come to be, and that is how the disciples would have understood it. They knew what covenant was and how it was established.
Yes, the covenants all involved blood. And the blood that Jesus used for this covenant that He instituted was the blood in the cup - the stuff that he gave to His disciples. It was the stuff in the cup that Jesus was referring to when he said "this is my blood". The cup was in front of him, and referring to its contents, He said: "This is my blood of the new covenant." Jesus did not say: "the blood that I will shed tomorrow is the blood of the new covenant". He said, quite simply, quite plainly, that the stuff in the cup was His blood.

You are distorting the plain meaning of scripture. A meaning that was plain to all those who read it in their native tongue for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Do you really think that Jesus would have waited 1500 years before He said "oh, and by the way - that's not what I actually meant"?

So, let's not take this as a Greek would understand it, but as a Hebrew would understand it. Bread without yeast and blood of the covenant are very clear to them.
Translation: let's not take this as a 1st century Greek would understand how a 1st century Hebrew would understand it, but as a 21st Century American thinks a 1st Hebrew would have understood it. :ahem: I have another suggestion: Let's not pretend that we know the Hebrew mind better than their Greek contemporaries did, shall we? :smile: Especially as their Greek contemporaries were actually taught by those Hebrews.

Ignatius of Antioch was the 3rd bishop of Antioch - the city where Christians were first called by that name. The first bishop of Antioch was Peter himself. Ignatius knew Peter and was taught by him, or at the very least was taught by people who were taught by Peter. And Ignatius of Antioch clearly teaches the Real Presence. How do you suppose Ignatius managed to get himself elected bishop, if he didn't even properly understand the significance of the most important ritual that Jesus taught His disciples?

And if Ignatius was mistaken, where do you think he got the idea? For that matter, where do you think the rest of the Church got the idea? They just all made it up? All came to the same erroneous conclusion? Why is it you find everyone, everywhere in the early Church who discusses this in any detail claiming that this was really Jesus body and blood? Are you really going to tell me that they all got it wrong and you got it right?

What about those members of the Church who were Semitic and not Greek? Like the Assyrian Church of the East? They still hold to the Real Presence too...

Once again Michael, you find yourself trying to explain how everyone in the Church got it wrong for the first 1500 years, and how it is that you're so much smarter than everyone else that you are able to see what they could not. Their blindness is made all the more astounding by the fact that they were reading their own language in their own culture and hearing it from those who were actually present at the Supper! Or perhaps (as I find more likely), it is you who is wrong, and the Church who is right?

[Amazing Rando]

Lutherans have taught the doctrine of the Real Presence in Holy Communion (consubstantiation) since the Reformation. I have long agreed with this stance: Jesus' Body and Blood are present simply because He said so and that when we partake of His Supper we partake of His Body and His Blood.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. Mark 14:22-24 (NIV)

Jesus doesn't tell us how, just simply that it is.

In a battle between reason and Scripture, Scripture (especially the words of Jesus) has the upper hand. We believe it because Jesus said it is so.
The "how" is a mystery, a mystery that is entrusted to God Who can do ALL things.

This is a great article in defense of the Real Presence (http://www.discernment.org/responding_to_the_real_presence.htm) from a non-Lutheran perspective.

Interesting, and I'll admit that I'm a little confused about the "real presence" doctrine. But can you tell me how the "real presence" of Jesus in the Communion elements is any different than his real presence as he promised in Matthew 18:20? . "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

It seems to me that Jesus is already present in the worship service.

Or that he's always with us, according to the Great Commission at least?

I'm not sure why if Jesus is already with us in the worship services and everywhere else we should go that a special presence is required during Holy Communion. Perhaps this is due to my ignorance of the doctrine, so can you flesh it out a bit more?

I'm potentially open to the Real Presence doctrine, if I could just learn a little more about it. It's still a little too foreign for me to really comprehend it. As it is, Communion is my favorite part of the worship service. I can sense that there really is something more to it than meets the eye, thought that could of course be due to the fact that it's the point of my most intense prayer and concentration of the whole service? As it is, I wish we Methodists would do Communion more than once a month, because I really enjoy it.

[Maxentius]

Interesting, and I'll admit that I'm a little confused about the "real presence" doctrine. But can you tell me how the "real presence" of Jesus in the Communion elements is any different than his real presence as he promised in Matthew 18:20? . "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

It seems to me that Jesus is already present in the worship service.

Or that he's always with us, according to the Great Commission at least?

Good question.

The answer is that Jesus is present in a special way, physically, when we receive communion. This presence is also unlike the presence of the Father or the Holy Spirit since neither have a physical nature.

This goes back to the Reformation, actually. The Reformed believe in a "Real Presence" too, but it is a spiritual presence only. The idea is that Jesus' human body is spacially limited so it cannot be everywhere at the same time.

Lutherans object to this because Jesus promised his body and blood to us in the Sacrament he instituted. How he does that is idle speculation.

We also do not go as far as the RCC and assert that there is no bread and wine present. And (pace elysian) :smile: Lutherans to not teach "consubstantiation". We simply say that Jesus offers us his body and blood "with and under" the bread and wine, according to his promise. It is a mystery and we do not try to penetrate God's mysteries if we do not have enough information.

On a "higer" theological level, if we say that Jesus' human nature is not present where his divine nature is, don't we divide the person in a semi-Nestorian way?

I'm potentially open to the Real Presence doctrine, if I could just learn a little more about it. It's still a little too foreign for me to really comprehend it. As it is, Communion is my favorite part of the worship service. I can sense that there really is something more to it than meets the eye, thought that could of course be due to the fact that it's the point of my most intense prayer and concentration of the whole service? As it is, I wish we Methodists would do Communion more than once a month, because I really enjoy it.

Ok, let's look at in a different way.

If we receive communion because Jesus told us to and in remembrance of him, isn't it something we do?

But, if we receive Jesus true body and blood, if we gnaw his flesh and drink his blood, isn't that something he does for us and gives to us?

Regarding multiple modes of God's presence. I love my wife. I can tell her that through a letter or a phone call. But I can also kiss her on her cheek. My kiss on her cheek does not make my love for her any more real but I am certain she feels my love for her more intensely. It is emotional and physical.

Holy Communion is similar. We all as Christians are concious of God's presence, of his forgiveness of our sins. But when the minister says "The Body of Christ given for you" and "The blood of Christ shed for you" and we really believe it, we receive forgiveness in more than a spiritual/theological/abstract manner. It is there we receive the very Paschal Lamb, forgiveness, renewal and new life.

[elysian]

Max, correct my error here-

Con`sub`stan`ti`a´tion
n. 1. An identity or union of substance.
2. (Theol.) [I]The actual, substantial presence of the body of Christ with the bread and wine of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper; impanation; - opposed to transubstantiation.

Tran`sub`stan`ti`a´tion
n. 1. A change into another substance.
2. (R. C. Theol.) The doctrine held by Roman Catholics, that the bread and wine in the Mass is converted into the body and blood of Christ; - distinguished from consubstantiation, and impanation.

Im´pa`na´tion
n. 1. (Eccl.) Embodiment in bread; the supposed real presence and union of Christ's material body and blood with the substance of the elements of the eucharist without a change in their nature; - distinguished from transubstantiation, which supposes a miraculous change of the substance of the elements. It is akin to consubstantiation.

My understanding has always been that RC's believe in transubstantiation, Lutherans and Anglicans in consubstantiation, and the Reformed churches in a symbolic meal.

Where is the doctrine of consubstantiation inconsistent with Lutheran teaching? Just curious.

[Amazing Rando]

Good question.

The answer is that Jesus is present in a special way, physically, when we receive communion. This presence is also unlike the presence of the Father or the Holy Spirit since neither have a physical nature.

Okay. :yes: I know better than to foolishly demand you show me just how Jesus is present in the bread and wine- to you guys, it, like many other parts of our faith, is a "mystery." :smile:

This goes back to the Reformation, actually. The Reformed believe in a "Real Presence" too, but it is a spiritual presence only. The idea is that Jesus' human body is spacially limited so it cannot be everywhere at the same time.

Hehe. Speaking of Reformed, where do Lutherans stand on Calvinism anyhow?

Lutherans object to this because Jesus promised his body and blood to us in the Sacrament he instituted. How he does that is idle speculation.



Gotcha. A mystery. I guess it all hinges on whether or not Jesus was being metaphorical when he said "This is my body."

We also do not go as far as the RCC and assert that there is no bread and wine present. And (pace elysian) :smile: Lutherans to not teach "consubstantiation". We simply say that Jesus offers us his body and blood "with and under" the bread and wine, according to his promise. It is a mystery and we do not try to penetrate God's mysteries if we do not have enough information.

I've heard arguments against the real presence doctrine that point at Jesus saying in John 10:9 that he is the gate. Those critics go on to ridicule the true presence doctrine by saying "if you don't think Jesus was literally a wooden gate with hinges, why do you think we literally eat his body and blood?" Now I know it's a pretty juvenile criticism, but how would you respond to those allegations?

On a "higer" theological level, if we say that Jesus' human nature is not present where his divine nature is, don't we divide the person in a semi-Nestorian way?

Now that's a bit over my head at the moment, but yes, at first glance, it would seem that where Jesus' person is, there his divine nature is also.

Ok, let's look at in a different way.

If we receive communion because Jesus told us to and in remembrance of him, isn't it something we do?

Yes... but that's exactly what he commanded us to do, isn't it? :huh:

But, if we receive Jesus true body and blood, if we gnaw his flesh and drink his blood, isn't that something he does for us and gives to us?

Certainly- his sacrifice was his gift to us.

Regarding multiple modes of God's presence. I love my wife. I can tell her that through a letter or a phone call. But I can also kiss her on her cheek. My kiss on her cheek does not make my love for her any more real but I am certain she feels my love for her more intensely. It is emotional and physical.

Holy Communion is similar. We all as Christians are concious of God's presence, of his forgiveness of our sins. But when the minister says "The Body of Christ given for you" and "The blood of Christ shed for you" and we really believe it, we receive forgiveness in more than a spiritual/theological/abstract manner. It is there we receive the very Paschal Lamb, forgiveness, renewal and new life.

That's a beautiful way to view it, Max. :yes: Thanks for explaining!

[Maxentius]

Where is the doctrine of consubstantiation inconsistent with Lutheran teaching? Just curious.

It is not that it is inconsistent or even wrong, it is that it attempts to describe the mystery--like transsubstantiation does.

Is Jesus' body and blood received?

Yes.

Is bread and wine received?

Yes. (NO! for transsubstantiation!)

How is that?

I don't know. God didn't tell me. He says we receive his body and blood and I take him at his word.

We are limited by St. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians where he uses body, blood and bread, wine interchangably.


Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

This does not teach concubstantiation. That is something other confressions say we believe. It is not totally inaccurate but nowhere in the confessions will we find a description of how or what is going on.

"Impanation" was used as an analogy for communion and the Incarnation. As with consubstantiation, it attempts to describe what is happening.

This is a hobby horse I have been riding for a while here. :hehe: I do not think it is wise to try and figure everything out. We just do not know and we are not told.

[elysian]

Hehe. Speaking of Reformed, where do Lutherans stand on Calvinism anyhow?

We are neither Calvinist nor Arminian. (http://www.grace-els.org/confirmation/interpretation/node6.html)

Not to sound cheeky but in a nutshell we agree with Calvinists on Total Depravity but we disagree on Limited Atonement. If you're saved it's all to God's credit, and if you're damned it's your own fault! It's an interesting point of discussion but we try to take Scripture at face value and it defies human reason.

God's ways are not our ways, His understanding is not our understanding.

[spl_cadet]

Just to throw in a little more, here's a link about some of the Eucharistic Miracles:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

[Maxentius]

Okay. :yes: I know better than to foolishly demand you show me just how Jesus is present in the bread and wine- to you guys, it, like many other parts of our faith, is a "mystery." :smile:

Yup, a mystery. Jusk like God's election is a mystery. :smile: Just like the Trinity is a mystery. We only see parts of a mystery, and that only by analogy. So we should be careful when we do not have enough to go on. That is why I do not think claiming "mystery" is a cop-out, as some claim. I simply do not have all the answers and I admit it.

Gotcha. A mystery. I guess it all hinges on whether or not Jesus was being metaphorical when he said "This is my body."

Yes it does. But I think the metaphorical interpretation is weak for textual and historical reasons. We see St. Paul emphasizing the same idea: an identity between the bread and the body, and the blood and the wine. According to St. paul, if one does not approach Holy Communion properly one is guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord, not bread and wine.

I've heard arguments against the real presence doctrine that point at Jesus saying in John 10:9 that he is the gate. Those critics go on to ridicule the true presence doctrine by saying "if you don't think Jesus was literally a wooden gate with hinges, why do you think we literally eat his body and blood?" Now I know it's a pretty juvenile criticism, but how would you respond to those allegations?

Just because Jesus uses metaphores in one place does not mean that everything that shocks our reason is a metaphore. Also, Jesus was instituting the Lord's Supper when he said "This is my body." It is a solemn occasion, whereas in John 10:9 it is clear that Jesus is using metaphorical language. In 10:1 Jesus starts with the analogy that those who do not wnter a sheep pen by the gate are theives--they do not enter the Kingdom correctly. Jesus is the Gate, the correct and only proper entry into the Kingdom, or sheep pen.

Basically, I think context argues against John 10:9 and the words of institution being connected in that way.

Now that's a bit over my head at the moment, but yes, at first glance, it would seem that where Jesus' person is, there his divine nature is also.

Yeah, sometimes Christology can get confusing. I do not think the Reformed are Nestorians of course.


Yes... but that's exactly what he commanded us to do, isn't it? :huh:

OK, I will clarify a little. :smile: He commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. Some say we are commanded to receive bread and wine in rembrance of him, and focus on the remembrance. If the focus is on rembrance it is primarily something we do. Also, I do not see why I cannot eat his body and drink his blood in remembrance of him. :smile: I often hear that as a critique. (Yhough you have not used it, I am just pointing it out.)

I hope this helps a little. :smile:

[Jezz]

It is not that it is inconsistent or even wrong, it is that it attempts to describe the mystery--like transsubstantiation does.

Is Jesus' body and blood received?

Yes.

Is bread and wine received?

Yes. (NO! for transsubstantiation!)

How is that?

I don't know. God didn't tell me. He says we receive his body and blood and I take him at his word.
I completely agree with the above, Max. But in my understanding, consubstantiation is simply a shorthand for saying exactly what you described above! Let me explain it by rephrasing what you wrote slightly:

Is the substance of Jesus' body and blood received? Yes.
Is the substance of bread and wine received? Yes.

Thus, we receive the substance of both at the same time - the one with, or alongside, the other. The prefix "con" means exactly that - "with" or "alongside". Hence, "con-substantiation" means that we receive the two substances alongside each other. It is not an attempt to "explain" the Eucharistic mystery - rather, it is simply a shorthand way to refer to exactly the doctrine you just described, and as a simple way to differentiate this doctrine from the doctrine of transubstantiation.

I think that the proper way to understand this mystery is in reference to the incarnation (what better way to explain a mystery of God, than by reference to another of His mysteries? :smile:). The purpose of the Eucharist is communion with the divine - where created meets uncreated. Jesus was the example of this sort of communion par excellence. He was fully divine - "of one substance" with the Father - and yet at the same time, He was also fully human - of the same substance as us. Somehow, these two substances coexisted in the person of Jesus. Exactly how is a mystery... I understand the Real Presence in the same way. It seems this is how Justin understood it, too:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

That is why I had to laugh when I read this statement:

Luther, who, unlike Calvin and his disciples, was not utterly blind to the clear meaning of the words of Sacred Scripture (cf. John 6 below), tried to preserve belief in the Real Presence while distancing himself from the Roman Catholic Church's teaching of transubstantiation. So he taught what we call consubstantiation: that the body and blood of Christ are present along with the bread and the wine.

The problem with this explanation is that it postulates an entirely new manner of being and says that Christ had to be using is in a way much different from the way we normally use the word, so that when he said, 'This is my body,' he really meant, 'This is my body (along with the bread which is still here too).' The real obscenity of this explanation is that Luther then has the temerity to complain about Catholics complicating the Gospel!
Consider how the last paragraph would apply to the statement "Jesus is God":

"The problem with this explanation is that it postulates an entirely new manner of being and uses the word "is" is a way much different from the way we normally use the word, so that when it is said, 'Jesus is God,' it really means, 'Jesus is God (and man too)'"

I doubt the author of that statement would object to the claim that "Jesus is God" does not mean that the substance of Jesus was not man... therefore, the "entirely new manner of being" that they are claim is already evident in the manner in which Christ Himself was "being".

Looked at from the point of view of the analogy to the incarnation, transubstantiation can be seen as the Eucharistic equivalent to docetism. Docetism taught that Jesus wasn't really a man (ie, He was not of the substance of human beings) - he merely appeared to be a man, while retaining the substance of deity. In the same way, transubstantiation teaches that the elements, after consecration, are not fully bread and blood in every way - but they just appear to be.

The problem I see with transubstantiation is that it is contrary to our experience. We know that the elements do not merely taste, look, smell like bread and wine - but also, if we subjected them to any possible scientific test, they would produce the same results as ordinary bread and wine. They would consist of the same atoms, molecules, produce the same spectrum in a mass spectrometer, NMR, etc, etc. In the same way that Jesus was every bit an ordinary human being, the Eucharistic elements are every bit as much bread and wine as ordinary bread and wine is. To say that they do not have the "substance" of bread and wine is to rely on an outdated concept from Aristotlean physics. And that was the problem with transubstantiation - it relied on specific scientific concepts of the day which were bound to look dated as our understanding of physics improved, and tied Eucharistic understanding to a concept that would ultimately prove flawed. The doctrine was born in the age of Scholasticism where such speculation was popular...

Hey, I don't mind speculation about how science and the mysteries fit together - I do it all the time. But it's one thing to speculate about it, and quite another to turn such speculation into dogmatic statements about faith. Speculation should never be dogmatic - it should be guided by our faith, not determining our faith.

[Maxentius]

I completely agree with the above, Max. But in my understanding, consubstantiation is simply a shorthand for saying exactly what you described above! Let me explain it by rephrasing what you wrote slightly:

Is the substance of Jesus' body and blood received? Yes.
Is the substance of bread and wine received? Yes.

Thus, we receive the substance of both at the same time - the one with, or alongside, the other. The prefix "con" means exactly that - "with" or "alongside". Hence, "con-substantiation" means that we receive the two substances alongside each other. It is not an attempt to "explain" the Eucharistic mystery - rather, it is simply a shorthand way to refer to exactly the doctrine you just described, and as a simple way to differentiate this doctrine from the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Fair enough. But I think that saying we believe in "consubstantiation" does attempt to describe the mystery. Luther's formulation was "in, with and under". He used an even better analogy, I think. He likened the Real Presence to the heat and light in a glowing red poker. Neither nature is changed. Consubstantiation aimplies a change in the elements IMO. That is not the Lutheran opinion. Also, every Lutheran minister I spoke with objected to use of the term consubstantiation. In any case I am not too dogmatic about not using consubstantiation. :hehe:

Here is a pretty good link:

http://joelbrondos.worldmagblog.com/archives/003188.html


First of all, what do these terms mean? Consubstantiation, as the word indicates, means a combination of two substances in such a way that by being mixed together they are fused into one substance or mass, consisting of different ingredients. For example, pouring the substances of water and wine together produces a watered wine (Weinwasser); blending honey and water produces mead; mixing meat and flour produces meat pies. Hence, in the Lord’s Supper consubstantiation would involve the concept of a spacial combination, mixture, and fusion of the body and blood of Christ with the consecrated elements as a new dual mass, as Eutyches once asserted the fusion of both natures in Christ into one nature.

Impanation signifies the spacial inclusion, concealment, incapsulation of an item within the bread, as in a capsule containing and enclosing the item. Hence, in the Lord’s Supper impanation would express the idea that the body of Christ, compressed into a very small body, lies concealed under the consecrated bread and is enclosed by it as by its container.

These conceptions of the presence of Christ, that is, of His body and blood, in the Holy Supper are thoroughly unbiblical, materialistic, unworthy, and self-contradictory, and they are equally un-Lutheran and in contradiction to the Confessions of our church. . . .

The first one to impute the conception of impanation and consubstantiation to Luther was Carlstadt, who therefore in a blasphemous way referred to the God of the Lutherans as a “God made of bread” (St. Louis Edition, XX, 577). Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and even Bucer of Strasbourg followed Carlstadt in this matter. Bucer, however, revoked his accusation after he had read Luther’s “Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper” and had talked with Luther. He wrote:

When Luther in the process of this disputation went into greater detail on this entire matter of’ the Sacrament, I perceived that he did not combine the body and blood of the Lord with bread and wine by a natural bond, nor enclose body and blood spatially in bread and wine, nor attribute to the sacraments the peculiar power through which these achieve the salvation of the communicants, but that he merely affirmed a sacramental union between the bread and the Lord’s body, between His blood and the wine. Furthermore, he teaches that the strengthening of faith attributed to the sacraments does not rest on a power which inheres in the external elements as such, but a power which belongs to Christ and is imparted by His Spirit through the words and sacred signs. When I understood this, I was at pains to show and commend this also to others.

Of course, it is possible to use the term consubstantiation and not mean that the elements are changed.

I think that the proper way to understand this mystery is in reference to the incarnation (what better way to explain a mystery of God, than by reference to another of His mysteries? :smile:). The purpose of the Eucharist is communion with the divine - where created meets uncreated. Jesus was the example of this sort of communion par excellence. He was fully divine - "of one substance" with the Father - and yet at the same time, He was also fully human - of the same substance as us. Somehow, these two substances coexisted in the person of Jesus. Exactly how is a mystery... I understand the Real Presence in the same way....

Therefore here and now I desire to testify to all who read this that Martin Luther and those who truly agree with him and duly follow his teaching do not assume any impanation in the Holy Supper, nor any local inclusion of Christ’s body in the bread and blood in the wine, nor do they ascribe any saving power to the external actions of the Sacrament as such. They assume a true, substantial presence and distribution of the Lord’s body and blood with the bread and wine in Holy Communion, as both the Lord’s own words and the testimony of the apostle clearly express. This presence and distribution is based on the words and institution of the Lord Himself, without any natural union of Christ’s body and blood with the elements. . . .

Actually, I used this same analogy when I was discussing transsubstantiation with an informed RC. More below.

It seems this is how Justin understood it, too:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

I doubt the author of that statement would object to the claim that "Jesus is God" does not mean that the substance of Jesus was not man... therefore, the "entirely new manner of being" that they are claim is already evident in the manner in which Christ Himself was "being".

Looked at from the point of view of the analogy to the incarnation, transubstantiation can be seen as the Eucharistic equivalent to docetism. Docetism taught that Jesus wasn't really a man (ie, He was not of the substance of human beings) - he merely appeared to be a man, while retaining the substance of deity. In the same way, transubstantiation teaches that the elements, after consecration, are not fully bread and blood in every way - but they just appear to be.

Yeah, my friend had a problem when I kept asking, if there can be only one substance, what does that to to the Incarnation? he did not have a good answer. But we do not really teach impanation. It is still a good analogy though.

And that was the problem with transubstantiation - it relied on specific scientific concepts of the day which were bound to look dated as our understanding of physics improved, and tied Eucharistic understanding to a concept that would ultimately prove flawed. The doctrine was born in the age of Scholasticism where such speculation was popular...

I think it was based on Aristotalian concepts of essences and accidents.

Hey, I don't mind speculation about how science and the mysteries fit together - I do it all the time. But it's one thing to speculate about it, and quite another to turn such speculation into dogmatic statements about faith. Speculation should never be dogmatic - it should be guided by our faith, not determining our faith.

I don't mind speculation either, and like you we should be careful not to take our private opinions and attempt to bind other's conciences to them.

[themuzicman]

Kinda like how it was odd that He only tore up 5 loaves and 2 fish, and somehow 5000 men + women and children managed to eat their fill. That was quite odd. Or like that time when He instructed His disciples to fill the water jars with water, and then when the servers served from it it was wine. Hmmm - odd. And then there was that time where He was crucified, and on the 3rd day after His death He got up and started walking around again. Really odd stuff.

Yes, it was odd that Jesus could offer His disciples His flesh to eat, while He was still standing there alive in front of them. That's our Jesus for ya - He did seem to have a knack for doing odd things. That's what made Him special.

You're not claiming that Real Presence is impossible simply because it was "odd", are you?

No. I'm saying it because if there is flesh that is literally Jesus' around before He dies that He hasn't pulled off of Himself, then He isn't human just as we are, and, as such is ineligible to be our atonement.

There is a vast difference between multiplying bread or turning water in to wine, and saying that there is a piece of Jesus' body that isn't attached to Him just before He dies.

No, "this is my body" would clearly mean "this stuff here, that I hold in my hand - this stuff is my body. Not something else - this stuff.

Yes, the bread and the wine.

Your objection begs the question because it assumes that the blood that Jesus was referring to was not the blood in the cup. In fact, it was the contents of the cup that Jesus was referring to when He said "this is my blood". And that which was in the cup had indeed been poured out. How else do you think the wine got into the cup? :doh:

Well, unless He slit His wrists, that would be a trick. Again, if there is more to Jesus' body than what is contained within the being that is sitting there, then He cannot be out atonement.

You're also committing the first sin of exegesis, which is to make tricky arguments based on things like tense from an English translation. The word translated "poured out" is not actually a verb in the Greek, but a present passive participle. Being a present participle, it has a continuous aspect - ie, it denotes an ongoing action at the time of speaking. In other words, as Jesus was speaking, the "pouring out" of the blood was actually happening. It wasn't going to happen in the future, and it hadn't happened in the past, or at some other unspecified time (all of which use different tenses for the participle) - it was happening now.

Ah, but Jesus also used the present tense "This is my blood", meaning it was present and had already been poured out, regardless of who done it.

Yes, the covenants all involved blood. And the blood that Jesus used for this covenant that He instituted was the blood in the cup - the stuff that he gave to His disciples. It was the stuff in the cup that Jesus was referring to when he said "this is my blood". The cup was in front of him, and referring to its contents, He said: "This is my blood of the new covenant." Jesus did not say: "the blood that I will shed tomorrow is the blood of the new covenant". He said, quite simply, quite plainly, that the stuff in the cup was His blood.

Again, if that was His blood, then Christ is ineligible to be our atonement, because He isn't the same kind of human Adam was.

You are distorting the plain meaning of scripture. A meaning that was plain to all those who read it in their native tongue for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Do you really think that Jesus would have waited 1500 years before He said "oh, and by the way - that's not what I actually meant"?

No, but I would expect that fallen men will misinterpret all kinds of things, this passage being one of them.

Translation: let's not take this as a 1st century Greek would understand how a 1st century Hebrew would understand it, but as a 21st Century American thinks a 1st Hebrew would have understood it. :ahem: I have another suggestion: Let's not pretend that we know the Hebrew mind better than their Greek contemporaries did, shall we? :smile: Especially as their Greek contemporaries were actually taught by those Hebrews.

Let's just go back to passover and see what was going on there. That's the symbolism Jesus is drawing on. Was there literal blood of the lamb poured out? Was there flesh made into bread?

Of course not. Why ask 1st century greeks to understand it, when we have the souce of that meaning already written down for us?

Ignatius of Antioch was the 3rd bishop of Antioch - the city where Christians were first called by that name. The first bishop of Antioch was Peter himself. Ignatius knew Peter and was taught by him, or at the very least was taught by people who were taught by Peter. And Ignatius of Antioch clearly teaches the Real Presence. How do you suppose Ignatius managed to get himself elected bishop, if he didn't even properly understand the significance of the most important ritual that Jesus taught His disciples?

Argument by association. Ignatius knew Peter, therefore Peter must have told him what Jesus mean, therefore this must be correct.

Unfortunately, we don't know that Peter or any of the apostles interpreted that event beyond passing on the tradition, and, oddly enough, the only apostle to mention it in an epistle is Paul not Peter!

And if Ignatius was mistaken, where do you think he got the idea? For that matter, where do you think the rest of the Church got the idea? They just all made it up? All came to the same erroneous conclusion? Why is it you find everyone, everywhere in the early Church who discusses this in any detail claiming that this was really Jesus body and blood? Are you really going to tell me that they all got it wrong and you got it right?

I won't claim that I'm inerrant if you won't claim that tradition is inerrant.

(This is SO typical of RCC. We've believed this for a long time. It HAS to be right. Sure. Ask Vatican I and II... or Luther... or Calvin.)

What about those members of the Church who were Semitic and not Greek? Like the Assyrian Church of the East? They still hold to the Real Presence too...

And?

Once again Michael, you find yourself trying to explain how everyone in the Church got it wrong for the first 1500 years, and how it is that you're so much smarter than everyone else that you are able to see what they could not. Their blindness is made all the more astounding by the fact that they were reading their own language in their own culture and hearing it from those who were actually present at the Supper! Or perhaps (as I find more likely), it is you who is wrong, and the Church who is right?

If I were the first person to posit such a thought, you might have a better point to make, but clearly I'm not. So, your whole argument about this being me vs. 1500 years of RCC history is moot.

Furthermore, there is no basis for saying that the RCC or tradition is inerrant, so this argument falls on that sword, too.

Perhaps, as with so many other issues in the RCC, the RCC is flat out wrong, and needs correction once again.

Michael

[VFarris01]

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," He said to them.

I hate to sound cliche but does the interpretation of this verse depend on what the definition of "is" is?

The obvious definition of "is" in this verse is "represents."

I am reminded of the movie A Bug's Life when Flick is trying to explain gathering seeds to Dot using a rock to represent a seed.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke the bread, and gave the bread to His disciples, saying, "Take this bread; this bread is my body." "But," injects Peter, "its a piece of bread." "I know its a piece of bread," Jesus replies correcting him, "pretend it is My body." Then he took a cup of wine, gave thanks and offered the cup of wine to them, and they all drank from the cup of wine. "This cup of wine is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. "But," injects Peter again, "its a cup of wine." "I know its a cup of wine, pretend it is My blood," Jesus replies through clenched teeth. "But its a piece of bread and a cup of wine," Peter says, still confused. Jesus shrugs His shoulders wondering why He chose Peter to succeed Him as His representative on earth. :wink:

[spl_cadet]

Musicman, tell me why we should trust your word over a second century bishop. I think that the bishop was just a bit closer to Jesus and the Apostles than you are.

[Jezz]

Fair enough. But I think that saying we believe in "consubstantiation" does attempt to describe the mystery. Luther's formulation was "in, with and under". He used an even better analogy, I think. He likened the Real Presence to the heat and light in a glowing red poker. Neither nature is changed. Consubstantiation aimplies a change in the elements IMO. That is not the Lutheran opinion.
Well, I've never used consubstantiation in that way. I've only ever used it as a shorthand for exactly what you said - ie, we receive the body and blood when we receive the bread and wine. Neither nature is changed - rather, the "body and blood" nature is united to the "bread and wine" nature when the elements are consecrated - in the same way that the Word's divine nature was united to a human nature when He became incarnate. More on this below.

Also, every Lutheran minister I spoke with objected to use of the term consubstantiation. In any case I am not too dogmatic about not using consubstantiation. :hehe:
If that's what they thought consubstantiation was, then I can understand their objection to the usage of the term.


First of all, what do these terms mean? Consubstantiation, as the word indicates, means a combination of two substances in such a way that by being mixed together they are fused into one substance or mass, consisting of different ingredients. For example, pouring the substances of water and wine together produces a watered wine (Weinwasser); blending honey and water produces mead; mixing meat and flour produces meat pies. Hence, in the Lord’s Supper consubstantiation would involve the concept of a spacial combination, mixture, and fusion of the body and blood of Christ with the consecrated elements as a new dual mass, as Eutyches once asserted the fusion of both natures in Christ into one nature.
This is not how I understand the combination of the substances in the Eucharist. Rather than the combination of water and wine, or honey and water, or meat and flour - I'd liken it to the combination of water and oil. The two substances are joined to each other, but they remain separate - not mixed.

I find it interesting that this person here equates "consubstantiation" with the Eutychian heresy. Because in the Council of Ephesus, the very phrase "consubstantial" is used to refute Eutychianism and Nestorianism:

We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ [...] one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place...

And embarassingly for that Catholic that I quoted in my last post and for your informed RC friend, it is actually from the Catholic web site that this came!

In this agreed statement (http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.html) between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the term "consubstantiality" is repeatedly used to differentiate Orthodox teaching from the Eutychian heresy (using the same terminology as the council of Ephesus).

As a matter of fact, the Athanasian Creed contains the same idea, too:

He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before time, and he is man born of the substance of his mother in time.
We see the dual-substance doctrine appearing again.

It appears that they're using a slightly different term and in a slightly different way to what I am used to, though. "consubstantial" is actually, I just realised, the Latin equivalent of "homoousios". It does not describe the way that the two substances are united. Which further underscores how good the incarnation analogy is to the Lutheran understanding of Real Presence. Although it does show that perhaps the usage of the phrase "consubstantiation" is inappropriate.

Impanation signifies the spacial inclusion, concealment, incapsulation of an item within the bread, as in a capsule containing and enclosing the item. Hence, in the Lord’s Supper impanation would express the idea that the body of Christ, compressed into a very small body, lies concealed under the consecrated bread and is enclosed by it as by its container.
Never heard of that one before. But I don't think the analogy to the incarnation teaches this. In the incarnate Jesus, his divinity is not restricted to his humanity. Is it? I was under the impression that although the divine nature is fully represented in the human Jesus, it is not restricted to it. But I might be mistaken there.

These conceptions of the presence of Christ, that is, of His body and blood, in the Holy Supper are thoroughly unbiblical, materialistic, unworthy, and self-contradictory, and they are equally un-Lutheran and in contradiction to the Confessions of our church. . . .
Well, I agree with that. I don't think the analogy to the incarnation teaches either.

Of course, it is possible to use the term consubstantiation and not mean that the elements are changed.
Yes. That's the way that I meant it.

Yeah, my friend had a problem when I kept asking, if there can be only one substance, what does that to to the Incarnation? he did not have a good answer.
Yes, I'm interested to see what spl_cadet has to say in response to this. At the very least, it certainly seems to be a fatal blow to the "Luther's teaching on the Real Presence requires us to redefine our understanding of 'substance'" argument at least - the precedent was already set in the doctrinal decisions on the incarnation.

But we do not really teach impanation. It is still a good analogy though.
As noted above, I don't think that making an analogy to the incarnation teaches impanation either.

I think it was based on Aristotalian concepts of essences and accidents.
Yes.

I don't mind speculation either, and like you we should be careful not to take our private opinions and attempt to bind other's conciences to them.
:thumb:

[themuzicman]

Musicman, tell me why we should trust your word over a second century bishop. I think that the bishop was just a bit closer to Jesus and the Apostles than you are.

If it were just my word, you might have a point, although you'd have to demonstrate how a 2nd century bishop is more inerrant than I am. But it's not just my word. Most protestants have realized the error of transubstanciation, and I simply stand with them.

(Besides, wasn't Arias a bishop?)

Michael

[Jezz]

No. I'm saying it because if there is flesh that is literally Jesus' around before He dies that He hasn't pulled off of Himself, then He isn't human just as we are, and, as such is ineligible to be our atonement.

There is a vast difference between multiplying bread or turning water in to wine, and saying that there is a piece of Jesus' body that isn't attached to Him just before He dies.
The difference is not nearly so vast as you are making out. This amounts to an argument from incredulity. Jesus was capable of performing miracles - the Father had given Him that authority - this was just another. If He can multiply bread, why can't He multiply His flesh - thus not requiring Him to slice it off Himself? How would this make Him not fully human?

No, "this is my body" would clearly mean "this stuff here, that I hold in my hand - this stuff is my body. Not something else - this stuff.

Yes, the bread and the wine.
Correct. The bread and the wine is what Jesus was calling the body and blood.

Your objection begs the question because it assumes that the blood that Jesus was referring to was not the blood in the cup. In fact, it was the contents of the cup that Jesus was referring to when He said "this is my blood". And that which was in the cup had indeed been poured out. How else do you think the wine got into the cup?

Well, unless He slit His wrists, that would be a trick.
Correct - it would be a trick. Although, generally speaking, we tend to call them "miracles", not "tricks". You're not claiming that Jesus couldn't do tricks, are you?

Anyway, where do you now stand on your original objection?

Again, if there is more to Jesus' body than what is contained within the being that is sitting there, then He cannot be out atonement.
Addressed above. Jesus did lots of miracles - I don't see why multiplying His body and blood without injury to Himself couldn't be just another in a long line of miracles.

Ah, but Jesus also used the present tense "This is my blood", meaning it was present and had already been poured out, regardless of who done it.
Correct. His blood was poured out - out of the wine jar, and into the cup. What is so hard to understand about that? Your original objection simply misses the mark.

Again, if that was His blood, then Christ is ineligible to be our atonement, because He isn't the same kind of human Adam was.
Adam couldn't perform miracles though, could he? I suppose that means that if Jesus performs a miracle, then He wasn't the same kind of human as Adam, and therefore He's not eligible to be our atonement... :doh:

There is simply no contradiction between Jesus offering us His body and blood to eat in the manner that He did, and Him being truly human. You're manufacturing a contradiction where none exists, in order to try and garner support for your otherwise unsupported belief.

Funny how noone noticed this alleged contradiction - even when all those ferocious battles where going on about the way in which the human and divine natures were united in the person of Jesus, noone (to my knowledge) once asserted that Real Presence meant that Jesus wasn't truly human. Throughout the arguments about Christ's nature, they all took Real Presence for granted. Seems to me you're the one who's got things mixed up.

No, but I would expect that fallen men will misinterpret all kinds of things, this passage being one of them.
It never ceases to amaze me how you can say this statement with a straight face and completely fail to see the irony of it. :ahem:

Throughout history, the odd heretic here and there has misinterpreted scriptural passages. There's nothing new about that, I admit. But you're not asking me to believe that this was an odd heretic with a unique misinterpretation. You're asking me to believe that this was uniformly misinterpreted by everyone in the early Church.

In reality, your methodological stance is no different to that of liberal Christians who claim that the resurrection didn't really happen. They believe that the Gospels and the resurrection were originally intended to be figurative - that is the "plain meaning" of the text - and the early Christians uniformly misinterpreted this as a physical resurrection. And when quizzed on how everyone could get it so wrong, they simply wave it away with a "people make mistakes"... When I argue against such liberals, I tell them that I don't think that the early Christians were that ignorant or stupid, and that they are being arrogant. And that is exactly what I what I am telling you.

Let's just go back to passover and see what was going on there. That's the symbolism Jesus is drawing on.
Gee, if only the Christians of the first 15 centuries had thought to do that, then we could have avoided this whole problem, couldn't we? :doh: Hang on a minute - perhaps, the early Christians did think to do that, and came up with a completely different interpretation. Yeah, actually - that makes more sense historically speaking. :ahem:

See, the thing is that Jesus didn't merely draw on the symbolism of Passover, he extended it. Just as He did with so many things throughout His ministry, He took something Jewish, did something a bit different with it - investing it with new meaning, new ritual, new symbolism. You are simply assuming that Jesus was drawing on symbolism in the way that supports your argument. The early Christians knew of the significance of the Passover - heck, they even continued to celebrate it. It wasn't called "Easter" until some time later, and to this day the Orthodox still call it "Pascha". And yet they saw the Last Supper as meaning something different than what you are claiming.

Was there literal blood of the lamb poured out? Was there flesh made into bread?

Of course not.
What is your point?

Why ask 1st century greeks to understand it, when we have the souce of that meaning already written down for us?
Because the 1st century Greeks had access to exactly the same source of meaning that we do, and had the advantage of being able to go and check with an apostle to see if they'd got it right. Heck, many of them were Gentile God-fearers and converts to Judaism before they became Christian (remember that the apostles went first to the synagogues when they went to a new city). And they had the added advantage of only being one or two generations removed from the apostles themselves. Quite simply, they were in a much better position in every way to evaluate "what Jesus actually meant" than what you are.

Do you really think you understand the 1st century Jewish Passover better than 1st century Greeks did?

Argument by association. Ignatius knew Peter, therefore Peter must have told him what Jesus mean, therefore this must be correct.
Yes, it's argument by association - which is a deductive fallacy, but not an inductive fallacy, so there is no problem with it.

What I am doing is offering the historically most plausible explanation for the data that we have. The apostles, when doing their missionary work, did not simply drop in and say "Here's a gospel, have a nice read, I'll be off now". They took their time to educate their converts. We also know that the Eucharist was the most important Christian ritual. You are postulating the rather silly situation whereby Peter, Paul and Barnabas and the other apostles spent quite some time at Antioch teaching their new converts, yet didn't tell them the significance of their most important ritual and left them free to figure it out for themselves. :hrm:

Unfortunately, we don't know that Peter or any of the apostles interpreted that event beyond passing on the tradition, and, oddly enough, the only apostle to mention it in an epistle is Paul not Peter!
Paul and Barnabas spent a year in Antioch teaching the people there. So your objection that only Paul mentions the Eucharist in an epistle misses the mark completely. Besides which, you don't mean to claim that Peter was proclaiming a different Gospel to Paul, do you?

Also, you have now postulated the rather extraordinary situation whereby not only did the apostles leave their new converts to fend for themselves and try and figure out the significance of the most important Christian ritual by themselves. No, it gets even more ridiculous - not only did they all have to figure it out for themselves, but they all made exactly the same error when they did. This is so extraordinary, that the only way that it could have happened is through divine intervention. :smile:

The fact is, the only way to explain the uniformity of the belief from such an early time and over such a wide geographical area is to assume that the belief came from an earlier tradition starting at a single source - ie, Jesus and His apostles.

I won't claim that I'm inerrant if you won't claim that tradition is inerrant.
I'm don't have to claiming that either are inerrant. I am simply giving greater weight to the majority, and greater weight to those closer in time, space and culture to the events. Given that your interpretation of Eucharist is only 450 years old and a minority view since its inception, I find it rather more likely that the majority view of all Christians of all times is correct, rather than your view.

(This is SO typical of RCC. We've believed this for a long time. It HAS to be right. Sure. Ask Vatican I and II... or Luther... or Calvin.)
(This is SO typical of Protestants and the "I don't care what anybody else says, I just believe the Bible" crowd. The RCC believes it, therefore it HAS to be wrong.)

This is not just the RCC, Muz. Sure, the RCC got some things wrong. But in this case, we're not talking about just the RCC. We're talking about the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians), the Lutherans (yes - even Luther), and the high Anglicans. In other words, all of the oldest denominations in the world. The vast majority of all Christians in all times and in all places have always believed this - and most importantly, the earliest Christians believed it. And noone believed otherwise until after the Reformation.

Besides which, this is completely irrelevant. It is simply good historical practice to note that the earliest Christians all taught Real Presence, and to deduce that the reason that they probably did is Jesus Himself was most probably the source of this belief. It is the only way to account for the complete universality of the teaching.

What's wrong with tradition anyway? Christianity is a revealed religion. The only way to preserve a revelation is by tradition.

And?
"And" the Assyrians are not Greek, but Semitic (like the Hebrews) - which means that your previous argument "why believe the Greeks" doesn't apply to them. The Semitic Christians agreed with the Greek Christians, and still do to this day.

If I were the first person to posit such a thought, you might have a better point to make, but clearly I'm not. So, your whole argument about this being me vs. 1500 years of RCC history is moot.
I didn't say 1500 years of RCC history - I said 1500 years of Church history. As I said, prior to the second-wave reformers, noone had your interpretation of the Last Supper. This is not just 1500 years of RCC history I'm talking about - it's 1500 years of all Church history.

As for you not being the first person to posit such a thought - well, that's true. But rewind to only 500 years ago, and noone has posited that thought. So clearly, at some point in history since then, there was a person who first posited such a thought. And clearly, that person was not Jesus.

Furthermore, there is no basis for saying that the RCC or tradition is inerrant, so this argument falls on that sword, too.
I never made any claim that the tradition is inerrant. The fact remains that, from the point of view of sound historical methodology, the best explanation for the absolute uniformity of early Christian understanding of the Eucharist is that it is exactly how Jesus Himself taught it.

Perhaps, as with so many other issues in the RCC, the RCC is flat out wrong, and needs correction once again.
Remove the plank from your own eye first, Muz... perhaps then you might be able to see clearly to remove the speck from the RCC. :lol:

[themuzicman]

The difference is not nearly so vast as you are making out. This amounts to an argument from incredulity. Jesus was capable of performing miracles - the Father had given Him that authority - this was just another. If He can multiply bread, why can't He multiply His flesh - thus not requiring Him to slice it off Himself? How would this make Him not fully human?

Because it would reflect being something other than human.

Correct. The bread and the wine is what Jesus was calling the body and blood.

But the real question is whether Jesus was being literal or symbolic.

Correct - it would be a trick. Although, generally speaking, we tend to call them "miracles", not "tricks". You're not claiming that Jesus couldn't do tricks, are you?

No, I'm saying that if there were elements of Jesus' body outside of the body that was present in the room with the disciples, then He isn't human, anymore.



Anyway, where do you now stand on your original objection?

Same place.

Addressed above. Jesus did lots of miracles - I don't see why multiplying His body and blood without injury to Himself couldn't be just another in a long line of miracles.

Other than the fact that creating body outside of His body makes Him something other than human.

There is simply no contradiction between Jesus offering us His body and blood to eat in the manner that He did, and Him being truly human. You're manufacturing a contradiction where none exists, in order to try and garner support for your otherwise unsupported belief.

So, you don't have a problem with an atonement whose whole body wasn't even present at His death? You honeslty think it's human to have pieces of your body outside of your physical being? I think not.

Funny how noone noticed this alleged contradiction - even when all those ferocious battles where going on about the way in which the human and divine natures were united in the person of Jesus, noone (to my knowledge) once asserted that Real Presence meant that Jesus wasn't truly human. Throughout the arguments about Christ's nature, they all took Real Presence for granted. Seems to me you're the one who's got things mixed up.


They had bigger fish to fry, like Arianism and Sabellianism and Socinianism and Pelagianism and...

It never ceases to amaze me how you can say this statement with a straight face and completely fail to see the irony of it. :ahem:

Well, I don't assume inerrancy in tradition, so it's easy for me.

Throughout history, the odd heretic here and there has misinterpreted scriptural passages. There's nothing new about that, I admit. But you're not asking me to believe that this was an odd heretic with a unique misinterpretation. You're asking me to believe that this was uniformly misinterpreted by everyone in the early Church.

It's happened before.

In reality, your methodological stance is no different to that of liberal Christians who claim that the resurrection didn't really happen. They believe that the Gospels and the resurrection were originally intended to be figurative - that is the "plain meaning" of the text - and the early Christians uniformly misinterpreted this as a physical resurrection. And when quizzed on how everyone could get it so wrong, they simply wave it away with a "people make mistakes"... When I argue against such liberals, I tell them that I don't think that the early Christians were that ignorant or stupid, and that they are being arrogant. And that is exactly what I what I am telling you.

Ah, yes... guilt by association. The vestige of the lost.

Gee, if only the Christians of the first 15 centuries had thought to do that, then we could have avoided this whole problem, couldn't we? :doh: Hang on a minute - perhaps, the early Christians did think to do that, and came up with a completely different interpretation. Yeah, actually - that makes more sense historically speaking. :ahem:

Doesn't mean they were right.

See, the thing is that Jesus didn't merely draw on the symbolism of Passover, he extended it. Just as He did with so many things throughout His ministry, He took something Jewish, did something a bit different with it - investing it with new meaning, new ritual, new symbolism. You are simply assuming that Jesus was drawing on symbolism in the way that supports your argument. The early Christians knew of the significance of the Passover - heck, they even continued to celebrate it. It wasn't called "Easter" until some time later, and to this day the Orthodox still call it "Pascha". And yet they saw the Last Supper as meaning something different than what you are claiming.

Yeah, Easter is the celebration of the God Aster. Wonderful move on the part of the Church, huh?

I'd really like to see the scripture that says that Jesus literally extended the passover.


As for tradition, I give it the respect it is due, but not the belief of inerrancy. The Church has blindly accepted (because the difference is really of no major consequence) transubstanciation, and now is a good time to really examine this doctrine to see if it's real. The reason it took 1500 years is that anyone who disagreed with the church was tortured into recanting, burned at the stake, or sent into exile. Finally, at the end of those 1500 years, someone stood up and said, "No, you're wrong," and we've been examining the doctrine that the monopoly on Christian doctrine has been manufacturing ever since to see what is accurate and what is not. And it is transubstanciation's turn.

Michael

[Jezz]

If it were just my word, you might have a point, although you'd have to demonstrate how a 2nd century bishop is more inerrant than I am.
Simple. A 2nd century bishop is 1700 years closer to the events themselves - closer in culture too - and therefore will know the history better. Therefore, they are less likely to fall into errors accumulating over time or caused by cultural influence than a 21st century American. This is a simple fact, Muz - you are more likely to make mistakes than they were. Be humble enough to admit it (the less humble you are, the more likely you are to make mistakes).

But it's not just my word. Most protestants have realized the error of transubstanciation, and I simply stand with them.
The majority of Protestants is still a minority of all Christians, Muz. And as I pointed out in previous post, the oldest Protestant denominations still believe in Real Presence - though none I know of believe in transubstantiation. Remember, this thread is about a defence of Real Presence in general - not about a specific type of Real Presence doctrine.

(Besides, wasn't Arias a bishop?)
:rofl: :lol: :lmbo: As if right on cue...

You wanted to know why a 2nd century bishop is more inerrant than you? Because a 2nd century bishop is more likely to know their 1st century history better than a historically illiterate 21st century American.

Arius (note the spelling) was not a bishop - he was a presbyter (aka, priest). He was in fact not allowed to vote at the Council of Nicea for that very reason. A few bishops took up his cause on his behalf (eg, Eusebius of Nicomedia - who later baptised Constantine).

[themuzicman]

Simple. A 2nd century bishop is 1700 years closer to the events themselves - closer in culture too - and therefore will know the history better. Therefore, they are less likely to fall into errors accumulating over time or caused by cultural influence than a 21st century American. This is a simple fact, Muz - you are more likely to make mistakes than they were. Be humble enough to admit it (the less humble you are, the more likely you are to make mistakes).

I already admitted to being errant. However, being closer to an event doesn't guarentee inerrancy.

The majority of Protestants is still a minority of all Christians, Muz. And as I pointed out in previous post, the oldest Protestant denominations still believe in Real Presence - though none I know of believe in transubstantiation. Remember, this thread is about a defence of Real Presence in general - not about a specific type of Real Presence doctrine.

Luther was in a SERIOUS minority when the Lutheran church started (albiet against Luther's wishes). However, he was right on some things where the church was wrong. Same goes for Calvin, Wesley, and a host of reformers. No, I'm not placing myself in their category, but I'm not the originator this argument, either.

The point is that majority belief doesn't make right.

Michael

[Maxentius]

The point is that majority belief doesn't make right.
Michael

Michael,

I don't think that Jezz is saying that a majority makes a point right, but rather that if an opinion was universally, or nearly universally held until fairly recently, that that view is probably a correct one. Unless there is a good scriptural reason to go against it, I think we should respect tradition. It helps us interpret Scripture, but it is under Scripture.

That is one reason I am still a Lutheran. :smile:

I have said it before, but I think here is where tradition is really valuable. It gives a "vote" to all the Christians who came before us.

Regarding Luther being in a minority. He did not see himself as creating new doctrines, but as restuning the Church to its foundation. He believed that many traditions contradicted Scripture and so had to go. The Book of Concord quotes the Fathers--tradition--quite extensively; and it was written by men who believed in Sola Scriptura! Correctly understood of course. :smile:

[themuzicman]

Michael,

I don't think that Jezz is saying that a majority makes a point right, but rather that if an opinion was universally, or nearly universally held until fairly recently, that that view is probably a correct one. Unless there is a good scriptural reason to go against it, I think we should respect tradition. It helps us interpret Scripture, but it is under Scripture.

And where we see tradition appears to be inconsistent with scripture, we correct it.

That is one reason I am still a Lutheran. :smile:

I have said it before, but I think here is where tradition is really valuable. It gives a "vote" to all the Christians who came before us.

No question there.

Regarding Luther being in a minority. He did not see himself as creating new doctrines, but as restuning the Church to its foundation. He believed that many traditions contradicted Scripture and so had to go. The Book of Concord quotes the Fathers--tradition--quite extensively; and it was written by men who believed in Sola Scriptura! Correctly understood of course. :smile:

I realize that, in fact, I even stated that the Lutheran church was started over Luther's objections.

Michael

[Maxentius]

And where we see tradition appears to be inconsistent with scripture, we correct it.

Yes, but here, Scripture and tradition agree that Jesus' body and blood are present when we receive Holy Communion. It is only recently that the doctrine was challenged. So, don't you think that those proposing that the tradition is wrong should have very strong arguments to counter the intuitive and plain meaning of the text? I do not think citing irrelavent analogies like "Jesus said he is a shepherd" are very strong arguments at all.

I realize that, in fact, I even stated that the Lutheran church was started over Luther's objections.

Michael

But Luther respected tradition, and he also believed that one can follow tradition as long as it does not go counter to Scripture. This is our Christian Liberty.

[themuzicman]

Yes, but here, Scripture and tradition agree that Jesus' body and blood are present when we receive Holy Communion. It is only recently that the doctrine was challenged. So, don't you think that those proposing that the tradition is wrong should have very strong arguments to counter the intuitive and plain meaning of the text? I do not think citing irrelavent analogies like "Jesus said he is a shepherd" are very strong arguments at all.

I never made those arguments. I'm saying that if there are elements of Jesus' body outside of His physical being before His death, then He does not have the same essense of humanity as Adam, and, as such, is not eligible to be the atonement for Adam's sin and the sin of mankind.

Furthermore, if, at the actual last supper, if Christ's body was already broken and His blood was already poured out, then what did He go to die for? The atonement is complete at that point. His body broken, blood poured out.

The fact is that His body was not yet broken, nor was His blood yet poured out. Thus, there must be a symbolic nature to communion and the last supper.

But Luther respected tradition, and he also believed that one can follow tradition as long as it does not go counter to Scripture. This is our Christian Liberty.

And I respect tradition within it's bounds, as well. We do stand on the shoulders of those who went before us. That doesn't, however, mean we shouldn't be foundation inspectors. If we're not standing on solid, scriptural tradition, we should be questioning it.

Michael

[Maxentius]

The fact is that His body was not yet broken, nor was His blood yet poured out. Thus, there must be a symbolic nature to communion and the last supper.



Jesus' human body goes through walls. It is a resurrection body so there is continuity and discontinuity between his body and ours.

Second, Jesus is also God. You are locked in a temporal mindset, God is eternal.

It is certainly possible for Jesus to perform another miracle, isn't it?

Also, how do you explain that all the early church got this wrong, intil Tyndale?

[themuzicman]

Jesus' human body goes through walls. It is a resurrection body so there is continuity and discontinuity between his body and ours.

Ah, but that is post resurrection. Glorified body, complete mission as a human being and all that.

Second, Jesus is also God. You are locked in a temporal mindset, God is eternal.

Well, in order for Jesus to be the human atoning sacrifice, He would need to be fully and essentially human, would He not? If there are pieces of His body outside of His physical being, it would be hard to say that He is essentially human.

No, I'm not denying His deity, but I am affirming that He is ONE PERSON with TWO ESSENCES, both of which must be fully embodied. If part of His body is outside of His body, that's not of the essense of what it means to be human.

It is certainly possible for Jesus to perform another miracle, isn't it?

Miricle, yes. To be the atonement without being a human like Adam in essense, no.

Also, how do you explain that all the early church got this wrong, intil Tyndale?

They had bigger fish to fry.

Michael

[Jezz]

But the real question is whether Jesus was being literal or symbolic.
No, that is not the real question. You are creating a false dichotomy. The Nicene Creed is called "the symbol of faith" - and it is also a literal statement of faith. In Semitic thought, symbols were literally true (Semitic Totality and all that).

Perhaps you meant to say "the real question is whether Jesus was being literal or using a metaphor?" In which case, it is obvious that Jesus was being literal - because that's how the target audience interpreted it. An example of it being interpreted this way is in John 6. In verse 52, we see that the Jews clearly understood Jesus to be speaking literally:

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

How did Jesus respond? Did He say: "Oh, no - I'm sorry. You've misunderstood. I didn't mean that literally - I was speaking metaphorically." No. Jesus goes on to reinforce what He has already said:

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Note especially verse 55: For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He does not say: "You were mistaken. I didn't mean that my flesh was real food and my blood is real drink - I meant that my flesh is metaphorical food and my blood is metaphorical drink."

There is no stronger way that Jesus could have said that He wasn't speaking metaphorically. His listeners understood Him to be speaking metaphorically - and many of them left as a direct result.

So here, you have a problem:

1. If "my flesh is real food" is not strong enough for you to believe that it was meant literally, then what is? Perhaps Jesus should have said "my flesh really, truly, absolutely and positively is food"?
2. Most importantly, if Jesus really did mean to speak metaphorically, then why did He use language that His audience interpreted as being literal? And even more importantly, if we work on the assumption that perhaps Jesus didn't realise that they were being misled, then why did He continue to use similar language once their confusion became apparent (v52) instead of correcting their alleged misunderstanding? There are only two possible explanations: 1. either Jesus was trying to deliberately mislead His audience, or 2. Jesus did not mean to speak metaphorically at all.

No, I'm saying that if there were elements of Jesus' body outside of the body that was present in the room with the disciples, then He isn't human, anymore.
Merely restating your opinion a thousand times does not make it any more true. You're simply clutching at any straw you can to try and support your position, and this is one of the last straws you have left.

Anyway, where do you now stand on your original objection?

Same place.
Perhaps I need to remind your original objection was, then:

Furthermore, you'll note that "This is my blood of the Covenant, which is poured out for you." (Mat 26:28) Notice that the blood has to be poured out for them. It had not been poured out at the last supper, so it could not be that blood.

Your argument in a nutshell:
1. Jesus said that the blood had already been poured out.
2. Jesus' blood had not yet been poured out.
3. Therefore, the blood Jesus was speaking out was not really His blood.

This is supposed to disprove Real Presence, but your argument fails at point 2 because it assumes that the blood He was speaking of was not the blood in the cup. If the content of the cup was indeed the blood of Christ, then Jesus' blood had indeed already been poured out. Thus the only way your "disproof" can work is if you assume that the content of the cup was not Jesus' blood - ie, assuming the very thing that you set out to prove in the first place. In other words, your argument begs the question.

Other than the fact that creating body outside of His body makes Him something other than human.
Again merely asserted. I don't quite understand why this miracle is a hurdle for you, when Jesus did plenty of other miracles that made Him something other than human. (Of course, Jesus was something "other than human" in addition to being fully human, so your objection is meaningless anyway. In fact, if He wasn't something other than human, in addition to being fully human, then He couldn't have been an atonement for our sins either.)

So, you don't have a problem with an atonement whose whole body wasn't even present at His death?
This is an absolutely silly objection. You've seen the Passion, haven't you? You saw the flogging scene? Do you suppose that some of Jesus' flesh went missing after that? Was His atonement less effective because some of His flesh had already been stripped? Did the fact that some of flesh was missing mean that He was not fully human? Of course not.

Or what about the fact that human beings shed a tablespoon of skin cells every day? Given that Jesus was about 33 when He was crucified, that would make about 301 litres of skin cells (probably about 300 kg) shed during His lifetime. Was his atonement less effective because all this material was not present at His death? :lol: If Jesus could lose flesh and replace it throughout His lifetime (part of the normal human process, I might add), then why could He not produce some of His flesh for His disciples to eat and replace it immediately?

You honeslty think it's human to have pieces of your body outside of your physical being? I think not.
Repetition of the argument from incredulity for the 10,000th time. Careful that you don't cut your finger off, Muz - coz then you'll have a piece of your body outside your physical being and you won't be human anymore! :lol:

Jesus did many things that are beyond the capabilities of ordinary human beings like you and I. You seem to be confusing "fully human" with "ordinary human". Jesus was far from ordinary.

They had bigger fish to fry, like Arianism and Sabellianism and Socinianism and Pelagianism and...
Correct. The Eucharist was not a "fish" that needed to be "fried" - everyone already understood it properly. That is why no attempt was made to "fry" it.

Well, I don't assume inerrancy in tradition, so it's easy for me.
You assume inerrancy in your own tradition.

Throughout history, the odd heretic here and there has misinterpreted scriptural passages. There's nothing new about that, I admit. But you're not asking me to believe that this was an odd heretic with a unique misinterpretation. You're asking me to believe that this was uniformly misinterpreted by everyone in the early Church.

It's happened before.
No, it hasn't. I challenge you to find me one example of a doctrine that was uniformly believed by the early Christians which later turned out to be false.

Ah, yes... guilt by association. The vestige of the lost.
No, it's guilt by being guilty. Your argument looks like this:

1. The Bible does not teach X.
2. The early Christians all unanimously believed X.
3. The early Christians were all ignorant and/or stupid of certain relevant facts and therefore got it wrong.

where X = "Real Presence". Simply substituting X = "Real Resurrection" will give you the argument that liberal Christians use. The arguments are the same because they rely on the same assumption for their validity - ie, that the early Christians were either ignorant of the relevant facts, or stupid.

Tell me, if the early Christians were so gullible as to uniformly mistake a metaphorical reference to Jesus' blood for a literal one, then how can we have any confidence that they weren't so gullible as to uniformly mistake a metaphorical resurrection for a literal one? How can you justify your own argument, while simultaneously rejecting the liberal argument?

Look at this another way: how was the canon of Scripture formed? By universal consensus of the early Christians. If that is an acceptable means for determining the very canon of scripture (without which your "sola scriptura extremis" position would be untenable), then why is it not an acceptable means for determining the correct meaning of the Eucharist?

Doesn't mean they were right.
That seems to be the extent of your argument. "The early Christians might not have been right. Therefore, Real Presence is a false doctrine."

Why would you trust the Scriptures? Just because they were decided upon by consensus of the early Christians, that doesn't mean that they were right... :ahem:

Yeah, Easter is the celebration of the God Aster. Wonderful move on the part of the Church, huh?
Although this is just an irrelevant, off-topic swipe at the Church and need not be addressed at this point, I'm going to answer anyway.

Yes, it was an excellent move on the part of the Church. After all, who remembers who "Aster" was these days? When we hear the word "Easter", who do we think of - Jesus or Aster? Adopting the Easter celebration was a very effective way of nudging Aster out of the consciousness of society, and replacing it with Jesus. The pagan festival of Aster has long become sanctified in service of the Triune God as a result of this move on the part of the Church.

The aim of the Church is not to destroy those parts of creation that are not sanctified. It role of the Church is to sanctify the whole world. Sometimes that will necessitate destruction of unholy things, but not always.

Do you think that the Church did the wrong thing in sanctifying a previously unholy festival?

I'd really like to see the scripture that says that Jesus literally extended the passover.
How about you show me the scripture that says that Jesus was speaking metaphorically of the presence of His body & blood first? :teeth:

That the Eucharist was not intended to be just another Passover meal is easy to demonstrate. Ask yourself the following questions:

1. How often was Passover separated?
2. How often was the Eucharist separated?

As for tradition, I give it the respect it is due, but not the belief of inerrancy.
No, you don't give it the respect that it's due at all. As for belief of its inerrancy - the scripture that we have is only as reliable as the tradition that gave it to us. No good believing in an inerrant scripture if they've handed down to us the wrong books...

What it boils down to is this, Muz:

If consensus of the historical Church (ie, tradition) is not reliable, then the canon of scripture is not reliable. Clearly, you believe that the canon of scripture is reliable, and therefore it logically follows that tradition is reliable. Therefore, it is inconsistent of you to reject a tradition that was so widely On the other hand, if consensus of the historical Churchi

The Church has blindly accepted (because the difference is really of no major consequence) transubstanciation,
Well, that's arrogant - you can't understand the difference between transubstantiation (note the spelling, Muz) and other forms of Real Presence doctrine, so you immediately conclude that is of no major consequence? You don't suppose that your lack of understanding comes from ignorance, or perhaps a lack of capacity (or more likely, a lack of will) to understand? I suppose next thing you'll be telling me that the difference between Nestorianism, Eutychianism and orthodox Christology is "of no major consequence" either... :ahem:

...and now is a good time to really examine this doctrine to see if it's real.
Been there. Done that. Nothing has changed in the last 2000 years that could have made it false. It is a doctrine that is consistent with scripture, and therefore it should be accepted.

The reason it took 1500 years is that anyone who disagreed with the church was tortured into recanting, burned at the stake, or sent into exile.
Conspiracy theory with no actual evidence provided. Where is your evidence that anyone disagreed with true presence during this time?

Finally, at the end of those 1500 years, someone stood up and said, "No, you're wrong," and we've been examining the doctrine that the monopoly on Christian doctrine has been manufacturing ever since to see what is accurate and what is not. And it is transubstanciation's turn.
Again, this is exactly the same argument that every heretic uses to argue for their heretical view. Liberals use to support their views - in their view, its the resurrection's turn. JWs use it to support Arianism - claiming that the evil Church stamped it out. The pro-gay lobby use it to argue that the Church has misunderstood the meaning of the passages on homosexuality, etc, etc. You are simply one more in a very long line of heretics.

Luther's Reformation was not about throwing away tradition. It was a return to the correct tradition - after realising that the current teachings of the RCC were not in line with what the Church had traditionally taught.

[themuzicman]

No, that is not the real question. You are creating a false dichotomy. The Nicene Creed is called "the symbol of faith" - and it is also a literal statement of faith. In Semitic thought, symbols were literally true (Semitic Totality and all that).

Perhaps you meant to say "the real question is whether Jesus was being literal or using a metaphor?" In which case, it is obvious that Jesus was being literal - because that's how the target audience interpreted it. An example of it being interpreted this way is in John 6. In verse 52, we see that the Jews clearly understood Jesus to be speaking literally:

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

How did Jesus respond? Did He say: "Oh, no - I'm sorry. You've misunderstood. I didn't mean that literally - I was speaking metaphorically." No. Jesus goes on to reinforce what He has already said:

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Note especially verse 55: For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He does not say: "You were mistaken. I didn't mean that my flesh was real food and my blood is real drink - I meant that my flesh is metaphorical food and my blood is metaphorical drink."

There is no stronger way that Jesus could have said that He wasn't speaking metaphorically. His listeners understood Him to be speaking metaphorically - and many of them left as a direct result.

You're arguing from silence. Never does Jesus say that He means that literally. In fact, Jesus said several things that were true, but that the Jews around Him misunderstood, and He didn't correct them. The Pharisees thought Jesus meant that He could literally rebuild THE temple in three days, and Jesus never corrected. Jesus said that those who received the Word in the OT were gods, and the people thought He meant that in a literal sense, and He never corrected them.

So, if you're going to say that every time the Jews took what Jesus said literally, and Jesus didn't correct them, that it MUST be correct, then David is a god, and Jesus was going to rebuild the literal stone temple in three days. (I'm sure there are more examples, but these two came to mind.)

So here, you have a problem:

1. If "my flesh is real food" is not strong enough for you to believe that it was meant literally, then what is? Perhaps Jesus should have said "my flesh really, truly, absolutely and positively is food"?
2. Most importantly, if Jesus really did mean to speak metaphorically, then why did He use language that His audience interpreted as being literal? And even more importantly, if we work on the assumption that perhaps Jesus didn't realise that they were being misled, then why did He continue to use similar language once their confusion became apparent (v52) instead of correcting their alleged misunderstanding? There are only two possible explanations: 1. either Jesus was trying to deliberately mislead His audience, or 2. Jesus did not mean to speak metaphorically at all.

Seems that (1) is likely, since He does it more than once.

Merely restating your opinion a thousand times does not make it any more true. You're simply clutching at any straw you can to try and support your position, and this is one of the last straws you have left.

Might help if you address the issue.

Perhaps I need to remind your original objection was, then:

Furthermore, you'll note that "This is my blood of the Covenant, which is poured out for you." (Mat 26:28) Notice that the blood has to be poured out for them. It had not been poured out at the last supper, so it could not be that blood.

Your argument in a nutshell:
1. Jesus said that the blood had already been poured out.
2. Jesus' blood had not yet been poured out.
3. Therefore, the blood Jesus was speaking out was not really His blood.

This is supposed to disprove Real Presence, but your argument fails at point 2 because it assumes that the blood He was speaking of was not the blood in the cup. If the content of the cup was indeed the blood of Christ, then Jesus' blood had indeed already been poured out. Thus the only way your "disproof" can work is if you assume that the content of the cup was not Jesus' blood - ie, assuming the very thing that you set out to prove in the first place. In other words, your argument begs the question.

Then why did Jesus still have to go to the cross, if the covenant in His blood was already poured out, and His body already broken? Wasn't the purpose of the breaking of the body and pouring of the blood atonement and covenant?

Again merely asserted. I don't quite understand why this miracle is a hurdle for you, when Jesus did plenty of other miracles that made Him something other than human. (Of course, Jesus was something "other than human" in addition to being fully human, so your objection is meaningless anyway. In fact, if He wasn't something other than human, in addition to being fully human, then He couldn't have been an atonement for our sins either.)

Technically, Jesus had to be unblemished, just as the sacrificial lamb of the OT.

This is an absolutely silly objection. You've seen the Passion, haven't you? You saw the flogging scene? Do you suppose that some of Jesus' flesh went missing after that? Was His atonement less effective because some of His flesh had already been stripped? Did the fact that some of flesh was missing mean that He was not fully human? Of course not.

That was part of the sacrificial process. He had already submitted Himself to be killed. You don't get the symbolism of the sacrificing of the lamb, do you...

Or what about the fact that human beings shed a tablespoon of skin cells every day? Given that Jesus was about 33 when He was crucified, that would make about 301 litres of skin cells (probably about 300 kg) shed during His lifetime. Was his atonement less effective because all this material was not present at His death? :lol: If Jesus could lose flesh and replace it throughout His lifetime (part of the normal human process, I might add), then why could He not produce some of His flesh for His disciples to eat and replace it immediately?

You gotta be kidding me. You're honestly going to say that Jesus sliced off a piece of His body to give to His disciples? You've never heard of the concept of the unblemished lamb?

Repetition of the argument from incredulity for the 10,000th time. Careful that you don't cut your finger off, Muz - coz then you'll have a piece of your body outside your physical being and you won't be human anymore! :lol:

Not and be perfect.

Jesus did many things that are beyond the capabilities of ordinary human beings like you and I. You seem to be confusing "fully human" with "ordinary human". Jesus was far from ordinary.

Jesus did them? Or the Holy Spirit did them?

Correct. The Eucharist was not a "fish" that needed to be "fried" - everyone already understood it properly. That is why no attempt was made to "fry" it.

Sure, just like the trinity, right?

You assume inerrancy in your own tradition.

No, actually, I don't. I've never appealed to my own tradition as proof. And I expect an apology for blatantly putting words in my mouth.

No, it hasn't. I challenge you to find me one example of a doctrine that was uniformly believed by the early Christians which later turned out to be false.

Impassibility.

No, it's guilt by being guilty. Your argument looks like this:

1. The Bible does not teach X.
2. The early Christians all unanimously believed X.
3. The early Christians were all ignorant and/or stupid of certain relevant facts and therefore got it wrong.

No, my argument goes like this:

1. Someone asserted X.
2. Everyone else had bigger issues to deal with and said "OK", and that was the end of it.

where X = "Real Presence". Simply substituting X = "Real Resurrection" will give you the argument that liberal Christians use. The arguments are the same because they rely on the same assumption for their validity - ie, that the early Christians were either ignorant of the relevant facts, or stupid.

You can call the early church stupid if you want to, but you're putting words in my mouth again. Which is usually a sure sign that you can't refute the actual point.

Tell me, if the early Christians were so gullible as to uniformly mistake a metaphorical reference to Jesus' blood for a literal one, then how can we have any confidence that they weren't so gullible as to uniformly mistake a metaphorical resurrection for a literal one? How can you justify your own argument, while simultaneously rejecting the liberal argument?

More putting words in my mouth.

Look at this another way: how was the canon of Scripture formed?

God spoke as the authors were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Various church fathers came up with various lists of what they felt were valid books of the canon, and a group in North Africa (?) finally came up with the list that all Christians use today. Not until the 1500s did the RCC actually have a council, and they decided to add a few books.

By universal consensus of the early Christians. If that is an acceptable means for determining the very canon of scripture (without which your "sola scriptura extremis" position would be untenable), then why is it not an acceptable means for determining the correct meaning of the Eucharist?

Because there is a difference between assigning criterion to the selection of what books we consider inspired, and declaring our own interpretation as inerrant.

That seems to be the extent of your argument. "The early Christians might not have been right. Therefore, Real Presence is a false doctrine."

Make up your mind. Is it because I think they're stupid, or because they might not be right?

Why would you trust the Scriptures? Just because they were decided upon by consensus of the early Christians, that doesn't mean that they were right... :ahem:

No basis for arguing with it.

Although this is just an irrelevant, off-topic swipe at the Church and need not be addressed at this point, I'm going to answer anyway.

Yes, it was an excellent move on the part of the Church. After all, who remembers who "Aster" was these days? When we hear the word "Easter", who do we think of - Jesus or Aster? Adopting the Easter celebration was a very effective way of nudging Aster out of the consciousness of society, and replacing it with Jesus. The pagan festival of Aster has long become sanctified in service of the Triune God as a result of this move on the part of the Church.

I don't disagree with that as far as it goes. However, that was a nice side step for scriptural basis for saying that CHrist extended the literal passover.

The aim of the Church is not to destroy those parts of creation that are not sanctified. It role of the Church is to sanctify the whole world. Sometimes that will necessitate destruction of unholy things, but not always.

Do you think that the Church did the wrong thing in sanctifying a previously unholy festival?

No. The point is that if the church REALLY believed that Jesus was extending the passover, it would be a shame to rename it something else.

How about you show me the scripture that says that Jesus was speaking metaphorically of the presence of His body & blood first? :teeth:

1) His body wasn't broken when he said "this is my body, which is broken for you."
2) His blood hadn't been poured out when he said, "this is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out."

I'm not sure how much clearer it has to be. Even if it was literally His body and blood, it hadn't been poured out, because the atonement hadn't been made, and the new covenant not established!

Plus: "Do this in rememberance of me." If Jesus meant for that to literally be His body and His blood, why call it a "rememberance?" We see signs on buildings and such that say, "In memory of..." That ediface is a symbol to remind us of that particular person. It isn't that literal person. Same concept.

That the Eucharist was not intended to be just another Passover meal is easy to demonstrate. Ask yourself the following questions:

1. How often was Passover separated?
2. How often was the Eucharist separated?

Well, is it an extension of the passover or not? (Just FYI, the last supper WAS the celebration of the passover, but Jesus was drawing symbolic comparison of Himself to the bread and the blood, which were required in the first passover, which resulted in having the angel of death pass over their house, and which ultilately led to Israel's freedom. There may be no better symbolic representation of atonement than the first passover.)

No, you don't give it the respect that it's due at all. As for belief of its inerrancy - the scripture that we have is only as reliable as the tradition that gave it to us. No good believing in an inerrant scripture if they've handed down to us the wrong books...

What it boils down to is this, Muz:

If consensus of the historical Church (ie, tradition) is not reliable, then the canon of scripture is not reliable. Clearly, you believe that the canon of scripture is reliable, and therefore it logically follows that tradition is reliable. Therefore, it is inconsistent of you to reject a tradition that was so widely On the other hand, if consensus of the historical Church

One does not need to embrace the entire tradition to accept the canon. That's proof by association and nothing more. X must be true and X is like Y, therefore Y must be true. Doesn't work.

Well, that's arrogant - you can't understand the difference between transubstantiation (note the spelling, Muz) and other forms of Real Presence doctrine, so you immediately conclude that is of no major consequence? You don't suppose that your lack of understanding comes from ignorance, or perhaps a lack of capacity (or more likely, a lack of will) to understand? I suppose next thing you'll be telling me that the difference between Nestorianism, Eutychianism and orthodox Christology is "of no major consequence" either... :ahem:

Why would I say that?

Been there. Done that. Nothing has changed in the last 2000 years that could have made it false. It is a doctrine that is consistent with scripture, and therefore it should be accepted.

Yeah, that whole protestant thing wasn't really necessary, anyway.

Conspiracy theory with no actual evidence provided. Where is your evidence that anyone disagreed with true presence during this time?

You mean other than the heretic burnings?

Again, this is exactly the same argument that every heretic uses to argue for their heretical view. Liberals use to support their views - in their view, its the resurrection's turn. JWs use it to support Arianism - claiming that the evil Church stamped it out. The pro-gay lobby use it to argue that the Church has misunderstood the meaning of the passages on homosexuality, etc, etc. You are simply one more in a very long line of heretics.

I didn't say taht the church was entirely evil. I said that disagreement with the church was grounds for serious consequences.

Luther's Reformation was not about throwing away tradition. It was a return to the correct tradition - after realising that the current teachings of the RCC were not in line with what the Church had traditionally taught.

Except for sola scriptura and sola fide and sola gracia and...

Michael

[spl_cadet]

You're arguing from silence. Never does Jesus say that He means that literally.

What part of "Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" do you not understand If someone says to me "I'm telling you the truth, if you don't eat me and drink my blood you're dead" I'm generally going to think that they are psychotic but I'm going to be quite certain that they are dead serious. The rules of grammar simply do not allow for an alternate reading of that statement.

[themuzicman]

What part of "Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" do you not understand If someone says to me "I'm telling you the truth, if you don't eat me and drink my blood you're dead" I'm generally going to think that they are psychotic but I'm going to be quite certain that they are dead serious. The rules of grammar simply do not allow for an alternate reading of that statement.

So, every time Jesus says "truly truly" (NASB translation from John 6), the topic of discussion must be taken literally?

John 10:1
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.

So, there is a literal door that one enters the fold, and if they don't enter that way, they're a theif and a robber? LITERALLY?

Did all the priests and biships enter through that literal door? Where is this literal door?

(Or, gee, should we read on to find that Jesus has used truly truly to refer to a symbolic thing?)

And let's not go too much further, where Jesus says:
John 10:7
So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

Literal or symbolic? (Here's a hint: Jesus is a human, not a piece of wood.)


So, there goes that line of reasoning. Care to try again?

Michael

[Jezz]

You're arguing from silence.
My argument consists of many parts - the argument from (conspicuous) silence is just one of these. There is also the fact that 1, Jesus uses language to emphasise that He was meant to be taken literally, and 2. He reinforces the misconception, rather than ignoring it or dispelling it.

Never does Jesus say that He means that literally.
This is incorrect. Jesus said:

"Truly, truly I say to you...my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink". Some manuscripts (eg, the Textus Receptus) read: "my flesh really is food and my blood really is drink". He did not say "my flesh is metaphorically food and my blood is metaphorically drink" to make it obvious that He was speaking metaphorically, and He did not simply say "my flesh is food and my blood is drink" in order to be ambiguous. If his chosen language does not mean that Jesus was speaking literally, then what does? What do you propose that Jesus should have said, in order to indicate that He was speaking literally? Unless you can answer that question, your position is unfalsifiable. What you're doing is taking away the vocabulary from Jesus that would enable Him to even make this claim literally.

In fact, Jesus said several things that were true, but that the Jews around Him misunderstood, and He didn't correct them.
I'll be waiting for further examples, as the two you gave were unsatisfactory for the reasons explained below.

Also note that the issue here is not merely that the Jews "misunderstood" and Jesus didn't correct them, but that Jesus actually deliberately reinforced their misunderstanding. He was trying to lead them astray. This is a pretty strange act for a shepherd who claims to have been sent to gather the lost sheep of Israel! Jesus is the good shepherd who protects the sheep - not the evil shepherd who drives them away.

The Pharisees thought Jesus meant that He could literally rebuild THE temple in three days, and Jesus never corrected.
1. This incident is missing the above element. We are not told what Jesus did after the Pharisees expressed their misconception - most likely, He said nothing. Most certainly, He did not reinforce their misconception (driving them further from the Truth), but left them wondering.

2. Jesus may not have corrected their misunderstanding, but John (the author) did. That's how we know the Pharisees had misunderstood - because John tells us. John 6 contains no equivalent statement. John does not write as an aside: "(But the flesh and blood he was speaking of was bread and wine.)" Without the explanatory note, it makes sense to assume that the Pharisees had correctly interpreted Jesus' words.

Jesus said that those who received the Word in the OT were gods, and the people thought He meant that in a literal sense, and He never corrected them.
We are not given any indication at all in that passage (presumably you are speaking of John 10:34-40) about how the Pharisees interpreted Jesus' statement. So this is an even poorer example than the first one.

1. either Jesus was trying to deliberately mislead His audience, or 2. Jesus did not mean to speak metaphorically at all.

Seems that (1) is likely, since He does it more than once.
That is almost blasphemous. The One Who is the Truth does not use deception to drive away those who might otherwise come to Him. As I said above, He is the Good Shepherd, not an evil one.

Merely restating your opinion a thousand times does not make it any more true. You're simply clutching at any straw you can to try and support your position, and this is one of the last straws you have left.

Might help if you address the issue.
I already have, several times. Your comeback each time has simply been to reiterate the original objection.

We're talking about a miracle here, Muz. Although I've been indulging you by speculating on various scenarios to demonstrate that it is possible, ultimately the burden is not on me to prove that it is possible. The burden is on you to prove that it is impossible. And merely asserting that it is impossible 1000 times does not constitute a proof.

Then why did Jesus still have to go to the cross, if the covenant in His blood was already poured out, and His body already broken? Wasn't the purpose of the breaking of the body and pouring of the blood atonement and covenant?
See below for more detail on this. There is a difference between the making of a covenant and the fulfilling of it - eg, the covenant at Sinai was made at Sinai, but not fulfilled until 40 years later (in fact, it was never completely fulfilled because of the Israelites' unfaithfulness).

Technically, Jesus had to be unblemished, just as the sacrificial lamb of the OT.
He was unblemished. More below.

That was part of the sacrificial process. He had already submitted Himself to be killed. You don't get the symbolism of the sacrificing of the lamb, do you...
Jesus' whole life was part of the sacrificial process. The very act of becoming incarnate and subject to the corruption of sin-infested creation was in itself a sacrifice of inestimable magnitude. God, Who was incorruptible by nature, willfully subjected Himself to the shame and indignity of corruptibility. You just don't get it, do you? :tongue: You think the sacrificial process started on Passover, but in fact that was merely the climax. The real beginning of the sacrificial process was some 33 years prior to that...

If Jesus could lose flesh and replace it throughout His lifetime (part of the normal human process, I might add), then why could He not produce some of His flesh for His disciples to eat and replace it immediately?

You gotta be kidding me. You're honestly going to say that Jesus sliced off a piece of His body to give to His disciples? You've never heard of the concept of the unblemished lamb?
Right, so now you have changed your argument. Originally, it was "Jesus couldn't have His flesh outside His body, because that would make Him something other than human." Now that I have demonstrated that humans can have their flesh outside their body and still be human (amputees around the world breath a collective sigh of relief :lol:), you have surreptitiously modified it to "If Jesus had flesh outside His body, then He wasn't an unblemished human." That's called "moving the goalposts" or more specifically "backpedalling". Moving them without telling anyone is what people do when trying to save face by not having to admit that their original argument was faulty. So how about it, Muz? Are you going to own up to the fact that your original argument was refuted, and that you moved the goalposts?

Unfortunately for you, I knew where you were going to move the goalposts to and for good measure I took aim at both locations to make sure that I would score. :teeth: You seem to have missed this, so I will explain it again. Note that in the section that you responded to above, I wrote "...and replace it immediately". The point is, He's not blemished if the flesh is replaced. Jesus shed flesh all of His life - He was unblemished because that flesh was replaced. So that proves that it is possible for Jesus to give His apostles His flesh, and yet still be not only human, but an unblemished human.

So even your revised argument fails. There is nothing inconsistent with having Jesus' flesh outside His body, while still being an unblemished human being.

Muz: You honeslty think it's human to have pieces of your body outside of your physical being? I think not.

Jezz: Careful that you don't cut your finger off, Muz - coz then you'll have a piece of your body outside your physical being and you won't be human anymore!

Not and be perfect.
See above. If Jesus came along and did a miracle and caused you to grow a new finger back after it had been cut off, would you not be unblemished again? Would the original finger (ie, your flesh) still be outside your physical body? The answer to both of these questions is "yes", which means that there is nothing logically inconsistent about Jesus being an unblemished human and yet having some of His flesh outside His physical body.

As I said, this argument is a dead-ender. You are only sticking to it because it is one of only a few straws that are left for you to cling to.

Jesus did many things that are beyond the capabilities of ordinary human beings like you and I. You seem to be confusing "fully human" with "ordinary human". Jesus was far from ordinary.

Jesus did them? Or the Holy Spirit did them?
Irrelevant detail in the context of this argument. By whatever power Jesus performed the other miracles (His own or that of the Spirit), it was by that same power that the bread and wine became His body and blood.

Correct. The Eucharist was not a "fish" that needed to be "fried" - everyone already understood it properly. That is why no attempt was made to "fry" it.

Sure, just like the trinity, right?
What is your point, Muz? When your comments are so brief and cryptic like this, you run the risk of me "side-stepping" (see below), because I sometimes don't quite understand what you're talking about.

The Trinity was not discussed until it became apparent that someone (ie, Arius) did not understand it properly. We have no such example of a dispute in Church History over Real Presence until the Reformation.

No, actually, I don't. I've never appealed to my own tradition as proof. And I expect an apology for blatantly putting words in my mouth.
Every time you submit an argument as proof, it is an argument that comes from your own personal tradition. Thus, all the arguments that you appeal to are equivalent to appeal to your own tradition. I see no reason to apologise for stating something that, by my reckoning, is almost tautologically true. :shrug:

But, to be fair, if you really think I've wronged you here, take it up with upper leadership. I humbly submit myself to their judgment and I promise to abide by whatever decision they reach. If they feel an apology is in order, I will in all humility give it to you.

Of course, then I'll have to point out all those times you put words in my mouth by saying/implying that I was appealing to the tradition of the RCC, when in reality I was appealing to the tradition of the entire Church. (The Church of Antioch, where Ignatius was bishop, is to this day a separate church from the RCC.) Fair's fair.

I challenge you to find me one example of a doctrine that was uniformly believed by the early Christians which later turned out to be false.

Impassibility.
:lol: Impassibility is not a false doctrine, and those who think so are in a minority. I know that you disagree, and rather than get sidetracked into that argument, see if you can find an example of a false doctrine unanimously held by early Christians that is not currently controversial.

No, my argument goes like this:

1. Someone asserted X.
2. Everyone else had bigger issues to deal with and said "OK", and that was the end of it.
This argument is only a superficial variation on the one that I laid out. Put X="Mark was the author of the Gospel we now know as Mark" and you have the liberal argument for rejecting traditional authorship of that Gospel. Similar arguments are used for rejecting the traditional authorship of many NT documents.

Given that your argument is identical to those who deny traditional authorship, the rebuttal is identical. JPH gives his rebuttal here (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html) - I have adapted the key points to apply it to your argument.

If the Real Presence doctrine was made up by an early Christian, why are there no surviving alternative traditions? Second-century testimony is unanimous in expounding the Real Presence doctrine. This suggests that the doctrine was received very early; for if was not, there would have been a great deal of speculation as to the correct interpretation of Jesus' words. It is rather harder to believe that Jesus' words circulated without explanatory commentary and then someone finally thought to give it an explanation - and managed to get the whole church across the Roman Empire to agree!

The fact is that your scenario is not consistent with the historical picture we have. Your scenario would not produce a uniform acceptance of Real Presence from the earliest times, but a sudden appearance in one place and then a spread.

You can call the early church stupid if you want to, but you're putting words in my mouth again. Which is usually a sure sign that you can't refute the actual point.

[snip]

More putting words in my mouth.

It's not that I'm putting words in your mouth - rather, it's that I'm taking your position through to its logical conclusion from your position that you haven't properly considered. If you don't like these conclusions, perhaps you should reconsider the positions that I derived them from.

God spoke as the authors were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Various church fathers came up with various lists of what they felt were valid books of the canon, and a group in North Africa (?) finally came up with the list that all Christians use today. Not until the 1500s did the RCC actually have a council, and they decided to add a few books.
Rubbish. The RCC did not "add books" to the canon at that council. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that the EO have the same books in their canon, and yet they weren't a party to the RCC's council? Just a convenient coincidence?

The deuterocanonicals were always part of the list of those books considered authoritative by the Church. The only question historically has been over just how much authority that they have. Luther kept the deuterocanonicals, but didn't consider them of as great authority as the others.

Because there is a difference between assigning criterion to the selection of what books we consider inspired, and declaring our own interpretation as inerrant.
The point is that any interpretation is dependent on the particular canon of books selected. If the early Church chose the wrong books, then the doctrine of "sola scriptura" is useless. Thus, if you think that the early Church tradition is not trustworthy, then sola scriptura itself is not trustworthy.

Make up your mind. Is it because I think they're stupid, or because they might not be right?
Muz, when an author makes two statements that are apparently contradictory, it is good common sense to first try and harmonise those statements before announcing that there is a contradiction.

In this case: your position would imply that the early Christians were not right. It seems to me that since they had the benefit of being much closer to Jesus and the apostles themselves, then the only way that they could have uniformly interpreted it wrongly is if they were uniformly stupid. After all, they had all the advantages that we didn't (eg, being able to ask apostles who were still alive what Jesus actually meant).

Why would you trust the Scriptures? Just because they were decided upon by consensus of the early Christians, that doesn't mean that they were right...

No basis for arguing with it.
Liberals disagree with you there. They invent a basis for arguing with a canon - just as you are inventing a basis for arguing with Real Presence.

I don't disagree with that as far as it goes. However, that was a nice side step for scriptural basis for saying that CHrist extended the literal passover.
Side step? Well, I apologise if that's the case. But, as I said above, sometimes your responses are so brief that it is often not clear exactly what they are aimed at rebutting, and this being a written medium and lacking in tone and facial expressions doesn't help matters either. You'll forgive me if I misinterpret as a result sometimes.

No. The point is that if the church REALLY believed that Jesus was extending the passover, it would be a shame to rename it something else.
The Eastern Orthodox still call Easter Pascha. And the big fat candle we light in our church is still called the Paschal candle.

But anyway, if Jesus wasn't extending the Passover, then that is a lot more damaging to your position than to mine. If Jesus was starting a completely new tradition that wasn't based on Passover, then you have no basis for referring back to the Passover as support for a non-literal interpretation of "this is my body".

1) His body wasn't broken when he said "this is my body, which is broken for you."
2) His blood hadn't been poured out when he said, "this is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out."

I'm not sure how much clearer it has to be.
And I'm not sure how many times I have to refute this particular argument before you acknowledge that it's been refuted. The above argument begs the question and your alternative explanation doesn't fit the grammar of the sentence.

1) The bread was already broken when He said "this is my body, which is broken for you."
2) The wine was already poured out when He said "this is my body, which is poured out for you."

In the Real Presence doctrine, the bread = the body, and the wine = the blood - hence, the body was broken when He said "this is my body", and the blood was poured out when He said "this is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out".

The argument you are using is actually more damaging to your own position than to Real Presence interpretation. You claim that the bread and wine metaphorically refer to Jesus' body and blood that would be broken/poured out the following day. But, as you so strenuously point out, the body and blood that Jesus was talking about had already been broken/poured out. It was present tense. Which puts a dampener on the idea that Jesus was referring to a future event (ie, the crucifixion), doesn't it?

Even if it was literally His body and blood, it hadn't been poured out, because the atonement hadn't been made, and the new covenant not established!
Where did you get the idea that the new covenant had not been established? Not from Scripture, obviously.

A covenant is a contract/promise (can be bilateral or unilateral). A covenant can be inaugurated without being fulfilled straight away. The blood that sealed the covenant was like a signature on a modern-day contract. For example, God made a covenant with His people at Sinai to give them the promised land. When was the covenant established - at Sinai, or when they finally took possession of the Promised Land (note that they never actually took full possession of the Promised Land)?

At the Last Supper, Jesus established the new covenant, promising remission of sins. The fact that Jesus did not fulfill His covenantal obligations until the next day does not change the fact that a covenant was signed in His blood that night. If God can wait 40 years after inaugurating the covenant with Israel at Sinai before delivering on His obligation, then a day's wait seems like nothing to write home about.

Again, your argument is more damaging for your position than for Real Presence. Jesus did not say "this will be the blood of the new covenant" - He uses present, not future tense. To claim that the blood of the covenant had not yet been inaugurated is to contradict the clear word of scripture.

Plus: "Do this in rememberance of me." If Jesus meant for that to literally be His body and His blood, why call it a "rememberance?" We see signs on buildings and such that say, "In memory of..." That ediface is a symbol to remind us of that particular person. It isn't that literal person. Same concept.
No, it is not the same concept. That is your 21st century American mind anachronistically interpreting the concept of "remembrance". The Semitic Totality view of the world meant that there was no distinction made between thought and reality. Thoughts that did not manifest in reality were considered to be thoughts held in vain. Think about what "re-member" literally means: to put the members back together. To the Jewish mind, merely thinking about Jesus' body and blood would have been a vain ritual - unless the "re-memberance" actually involved Jesus' members (ie, his body and blood) being present in the ritual.

Well, is it an extension of the passover or not? (Just FYI, the last supper WAS the celebration of the passover, but Jesus was drawing symbolic comparison of Himself to the bread and the blood, which were required in the first passover, which resulted in having the angel of death pass over their house, and which ultilately led to Israel's freedom. There may be no better symbolic representation of atonement than the first passover.)
I'm confused. If you think that the Last Supper was an extension of Passover, with Jesus investing it with new meaning by making it a symbolic comparison with Himself, then why are you asking me to prove it?

Besides which, you seem to be forgetting that "symbolic" does not immediately imply "metaphorical". I agree that there was symbolic representation in the Last Supper - but it was also literal.

One does not need to embrace the entire tradition to accept the canon. That's proof by association and nothing more. X must be true and X is like Y, therefore Y must be true. Doesn't work.
Of course, one does not need to embrace the entire tradition to accept the canon. One does not need to be consistent if they do not wish to...

But if one wants to be consistent in the methodology they use, then they must. Otherwise, they are selectively using those parts of the tradition that reinforce their preferred view, rather than deriving their views objectively using a sound methodology.

Well, that's arrogant - you can't understand the difference between transubstantiation (note the spelling, Muz) and other forms of Real Presence doctrine, so you immediately conclude that is of no major consequence? You don't suppose that your lack of understanding comes from ignorance, or perhaps a lack of capacity (or more likely, a lack of will) to understand? I suppose next thing you'll be telling me that the difference between Nestorianism, Eutychianism and orthodox Christology is "of no major consequence" either...

Why would I say that?
Why would you say that? Because the difference between Eutychianism and orthodox Christology is the same as the difference between transubstantiation and the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist. I presume if you could not understand the difference between the different Real Presence doctrines - or assumed that the differences were of no major consequence - then the same would be true of the different Christologies.

Nothing has changed in the last 2000 years that could have made it false. It is a doctrine that is consistent with scripture, and therefore it should be accepted.

Yeah, that whole protestant thing wasn't really necessary, anyway.
With respect to the particular doctrine of Real Presence - no, reformation wasn't necessary. Not in the least. Reformation was necessary for the specific innovation of transubstantiation, but not for the more general doctrine of Real Presence.

The original goal of Luther's Reformation (like the various reformations before it) was to get rid of corrupt traditions - not to start rebuilding all new traditions from scratch. He didn't discard a tradition unless he felt it was contrary to Scripture. Real Presence is not contrary to scripture, and therefore there was no reason to discard it.

You mean other than the heretic burnings?
Name one historical incident where a person was burned for denying the Real Presence.

I think that your idea about the Church burning heretics is greatly exaggerated anyway, as do many anti-Christian bashers of the Church and Christianity. Generally they were banished, not executed. Witches were burned, but that was for practicing sorcery - not for being heretics. Perhaps you're getting the two mixed up.

I didn't say taht the church was entirely evil. I said that disagreement with the church was grounds for serious consequences.
Of course disagreeing with the Church has serious consequences. If you disagree with the pillar and ground of truth, by definition it means you deny the truth and believe a lie. Believing lies always has serious consequences. :smile:

Except for sola scriptura and sola fide and sola gracia and...
Yes - sola scriptura, sola fide and sola gracia - three phrases that you won't find in the Bible...

As I pointed out in this thread, Lutheran theologians have recently acknowledged that Lutheran understanding of "sola scriptura" agrees with Orthodox (and hence Roman Catholic) understanding of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Their only remaining differences (if indeed there are any) lie in the question which of them has the correct Tradition, or if the correct Tradition is a combination of the three.

But this is getting into a whole other argument that really hasn't got anything much to do with Real Presence, so I won't be pursuing it any further.

[Jezz]

(Or, gee, should we read on to find that Jesus has used truly truly to refer to a symbolic thing?)

And let's not go too much further, where Jesus says:
John 10:7
So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

Literal or symbolic? (Here's a hint: Jesus is a human, not a piece of wood.)
A quick question: When Jesus says: "I am the door of the sheep", what does this mean:

1. Jesus is the "door of the sheep"? or
2. Jesus represents the "door of the sheep"?

[themuzicman]

A quick question: When Jesus says: "I am the door of the sheep", what does this mean:

1. Jesus is the "door of the sheep"? or
2. Jesus represents the "door of the sheep"?

It means that Jesus is like a door for sheep. He is the way to the Father. (You remember the whole "way, truth, life" thing, right?) That's what symbolism is: Something is similar to something else in a certain way. In the case of the last supper, John 6, and here, we find metaphors rather than similies.

However, it is nice to see that you've realized your error, and realized that Jesus uses metaphors, even about Himself.

Michael

[VFarris01]

My argument consists of many parts - the argument from (conspicuous) silence is just one of these. There is also the fact that 1, Jesus uses language to emphasise that He was meant to be taken literally, and 2. He reinforces the misconception, rather than ignoring it or dispelling it.

This is incorrect. Jesus said:

"Truly, truly I say to you...my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink". Some manuscripts (eg, the Textus Receptus) read: "my flesh really is food and my blood really is drink". He did not say "my flesh is metaphorically food and my blood is metaphorically drink" to make it obvious that He was speaking metaphorically, and He did not simply say "my flesh is food and my blood is drink" in order to be ambiguous. If his chosen language does not mean that Jesus was speaking literally, then what does? What do you propose that Jesus should have said, in order to indicate that He was speaking literally? Unless you can answer that question, your position is unfalsifiable. What you're doing is taking away the vocabulary from Jesus that would enable Him to even make this claim literally.
I tell you the truth even my (VF01) flesh is real food and my (VF01) blood is real drink.

Let us look at some of the other things Christ said concerning bread:

(4) But he answered, "It is written, 'One must not live on bread alone, but on every word coming out of the mouth of God.'" (see also Luke 4)
(5) When his disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to take any bread along. (6) Jesus said to them, "Watch out! Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!" (7) They began to discuss this among themselves and said, "We didn't take any bread." (8) Knowing this, Jesus said, "You who have little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you don't have any bread? (9) Don't you understand yet? Don't you remember the five loaves for the 5,000 and how many baskets you collected, (10) or the seven loaves for the 4,000 and how many baskets you collected? (11) How can you fail to understand that I wasn't talking to you about bread? Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!" (12) Then they understood that he did not say to beware of the yeast used in bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (see also Mark 8 and John 6)

Taking verses out of context to support errant doctrine is a staple of the RCC.

Consider all (almost anyway) of John 6:

(1) After this, Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (or Tiberias). (2) A large crowd kept following him because they had seen the signs that he was performing on the sick. (3) But Jesus went up on a hillside and sat down there with his disciples. (4) Now the Passover, the festival of the Jews, was near. (5) When Jesus looked up and saw that a large crowd was coming toward him, he said to Philip, "Where can we buy bread for these people to eat?" (6) Jesus said this to test him, for he himself knew what he was going to do. (7) Philip answered him, "Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not enough for each of them to get a little." (8) One of his disciples, Andrew, who was Simon Peter's brother, said to him, (9) "There's a little boy here who has five barley loaves and two small fish. But what are they among so many people?" (10) Jesus said, "Have the people sit down." Now there was plenty of grass in that place. So the men sat down, numbering about 5,000. (11) Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were seated. He also distributed the fish, as much as they wanted. (12) When they were completely satisfied, he told his disciples, "Collect the pieces that are left over so that nothing is lost." (13) So they collected them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten. (14) When the people saw the sign that he had done, they kept saying, "Truly this is the Prophet who was to come into the world!" (15) Then Jesus, realizing that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, withdrew again to the hillside by himself...

(22) The next day, the crowd that had remained on the other side of the sea noticed that only one boat had been there, and no other, and that Jesus had not gotten into that boat with his disciples. Instead, his disciples had gone away by themselves. (23) Other small boats from Tiberias arrived near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. (24) When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into these boats and went to Capernaum to look for Jesus. (25) When they had found him on the other side of the sea, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" (26) Jesus replied to them, "Truly, truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate the loaves and were completely satisfied. (27) Do not work for the food that perishes but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal." (28) Then they said to him, "What must we do to perform the works of God?" (29) Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God: to believe in the one whom he has sent." (30) So they said to him, "What sign are you going to do so that we may see it and believe in you? What work are you performing?

(31) Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" (32) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. (33) For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (34) Then they said to him, "Sir, give us this bread all the time." (35) Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never become hungry, and the one who believes in me will never become thirsty. (36) I told you that you have seen me, yet you do not believe. (37) Everything the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never turn away. (38) For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me. (39) And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything that he has given me, but should raise it to life on the last day. (40) For this is my Father's will, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day." (41) Then the Jews began grumbling about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." (42) They kept saying, "This is Jesus, the son of Joseph, isn't it, whose father and mother we know? So how can he say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" (43) Jesus answered them, "Stop grumbling among yourselves. (44) No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him to life on the last day. (45) It is written in the Prophets, 'And all of them will be taught by God.' Everyone who has listened to the Father and has learned anything comes to me. (46) Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who comes from God. This one has seen the Father. (47) Truly, truly I tell you, the one who believes in me has eternal life. (48) I am the bread of life. (49) Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness and died. (50) This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that a person may eat it and not die. (51) I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread, he will live forever. And the bread I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." (52) Then the Jews debated angrily with each other, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (53) So Jesus told them, "Truly, truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. (54) The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day. (55) For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. (56) The person who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. (57) Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will also live because of me. (58) This is the bread that came down from heaven, not the kind that your ancestors ate. They died, but the one who eats this bread will live forever." (59) He said this while teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum. (60) When many of his disciples heard this, they said, "This is a difficult statement. Who can accept it?" (61) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Does this offend you? (62) What if you saw the Son of Man going up to the place where he was before? (63) It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. (64) But there are some among you who do not believe." For from the beginning Jesus knew those who wouldn't believe, as well as the one who would betray him. (65) So he said, "That's why I told you that no one can come to me unless it be granted him by the Father." (66) As a result, many of his disciples turned back and no longer associated with him. (67) So Jesus said to the twelve, "You don't want to leave, too, do you?" (68) Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. (69) Besides, we have believed and remain convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

When reading the entire exchange it is obvious and clear Jesus is speaking metaphorically. Jesus tells "many of His disciples" the meaning of v53-58 in v60-63. Perhaps some of you missed, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless."

(6) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

What did Paul have to say concerning the "Lord's Supper?"

(16) The cup of blessing that we bless is a sign of our sharing in the blood of Christ, isn't it? The bread that we break is a sign of our sharing in the body of Christ, isn't it? (17) Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, because all of us partake of the one loaf.

The bread and juice are symbols of Jesus' body and blood:

(23) For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you-how the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a loaf of bread, (24) gave thanks for it, and broke it in pieces, saying, "This is my body that is for you. Keep doing this in memory of me." (25) He did the same with the cup after the supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. As often as you drink from it, keep doing this in memory of me." (26) For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (27) Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks from the cup in an unworthy manner will be held responsible for the Lord's body and blood. (28) A person must examine himself and then eat the bread and drink from the cup. (29) For the one who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. (30) That's why so many of you are weak and sick and a considerable number are dying. (31) But if we judged ourselves correctly, we would not be judged. (32) Now, while we are being judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined lest we be condemned along with the world.

"The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

[Maxentius]

I tell you the truth even my (VF01) flesh is real food and my (VF01) blood is real drink.

Are you Christ? Are you the creator of the Universe? Are you instituting a sacrament? This analogy is irrelavent.

Let us look at some of the other things Christ said concerning bread:
[snip]

Taking verses out of context to support errant doctrine is a staple of the RCC.

You just gave a laundry list of verses with no explanation. Please explain why they are pertinent to the topic at hand. Maybe you are right, but I don't think so. I submit that you are taking those verses out of context by asserting they have something to do with the Real Presence, or even the Lord's Supper at all. In context they do not.

Consider all (almost anyway) of John 6: (snip long quote)

When reading the entire exchange it is obvious and clear Jesus is speaking metaphorically. Jesus tells "many of His disciples" the meaning of v53-58 in v60-63. Perhaps some of you missed, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless."

OK, the flesh us useless. That is your principle.

Now please explain why Jesus saw fit to redeem useless flesh, to become useless flesh, to suffer in the flesh (since it is useless). Why would that be necessary? Please do so while maintaining your overriding principle that "flesh is useless." Also, if flesh is useless, why does God use it to spread the Gospel? Why not just have the Holy Spirit pop into anyone he wants regardless of preachers etc? "Flesh is useless" cannot possibly have the meaning you give it here or many other doctrines make no sense at all, like the Great Commission.

Maybe "flesh" here means something different in context? Like maybe, our flesh cannot understand the things of God, so as far as that goes, it is useless?

(6) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

And one way we come to the Father through Jesus is by the means he instituted, to eat his flesh and dring his blood.

Remember, we receive his flesh and blood for the remission of sins--that IS life and Spirit! Since we are regenerated through the forgiveness of sins, what exactly is the problem?

What did Paul have to say concerning the "Lord's Supper?"

(16) The cup of blessing that we bless is a sign of our sharing in the blood of Christ, isn't it? The bread that we break is a sign of our sharing in the body of Christ, isn't it? (17) Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, because all of us partake of the one loaf.

The bread and juice are symbols of Jesus' body and blood:

:lmbo:JUICE!?!?!:lmbo: No, it was wine. Jesus really enjoyed the stuff actually, and he was a pretty good maker of :hehe: the strong stuff :hehe: when a party was on. Please see the Marriage at Cana.

Interesting how you slip "juice" in, and use only a single English version to support your doctrines.

Other than your assertion, why does this verse teach that the bread and wine are symbolic? Also, you are relying on a single English translation--a very serious methodological error. Let's see what others say.

KJV:
16 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?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

NIV:
16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

ESV:
16The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

NLV:
16When we give thanks for the fruit of the vine at the Lord's supper, are we not sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread we eat at the Lord's supper, are we not sharing in the body of Christ? 17There is one bread, and many of us Christians make up the body of Christ. All of us eat from that bread.

And finally, the interlinear:

10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless (5719) , is it (5748) not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break (5719) , is it (5748) not the communion of the body of Christ?

to pothrion thv eulogiav o eulogoumen, (5719) ouxi koinwnia estin (5748) tou aimatov tou Xristou? ton arton on klwmen, (5719) ouxi koinwnia tou swmatov tou Xristou estin? (5748)


10:17
For we being many are (5748) one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers (5719) of that one bread.

oti eiv artov, en swma oi polloi esmen, (5748) oi gar pantev ek tou enov artou metexomen. (5719)

I am not a Greek scholar, but I do not see the word "symbol" or "symbolize" here. I do see koinwnia, which means fellowship/sharing/participation.

The other translations clearly state that there is no symbolism--we are sharing Jesus' body and blood. Given the history behind the Real Presence, the single translation in the ISV does not hold too much water.

(23) For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you-how the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a loaf of bread, (24) gave thanks for it, and broke it in pieces, saying, "This is my body that is for you. Keep doing this in memory of me." (25) He did the same with the cup after the supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. As often as you drink from it, keep doing this in memory of me." (26) For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (27) Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks from the cup in an unworthy manner will be held responsible for the Lord's body and blood. (28) A person must examine himself and then eat the bread and drink from the cup. (29) For the one who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. (30) That's why so many of you are weak and sick and a considerable number are dying. (31) But if we judged ourselves correctly, we would not be judged. (32) Now, while we are being judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined lest we be condemned along with the world.

Please see verse 27, where unworthy recipients are guilty "held responsible" (sounds like someone is smuggling in their doctrine again!) for the Lord's body and blood. I won't bother to quote all those other translations again, which refute the ISV--but why would we be "held respinsible" for a symbolic act? Why the special exception here?

It sounds like the very "proof texts" you use proclaim Jesus' Real Presence in the elements, contra your assertion.

"The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

Why do you fail to see the Spirit at work in the Lord's Supper? Why do you only see the elements?

[Jezz]

Excellent response Max - you saved me the trouble. :smile: I am only replying to back you up on this point.

10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless (5719) , is it (5748) not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break (5719) , is it (5748) not the communion of the body of Christ?

to pothrion thv eulogiav o eulogoumen, (5719) ouxi koinwnia estin (5748) tou aimatov tou Xristou? ton arton on klwmen, (5719) ouxi koinwnia tou swmatov tou Xristou estin? (5748)


10:17
For we being many are (5748) one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers (5719) of that one bread.

oti eiv artov, en swma oi polloi esmen, (5748) oi gar pantev ek tou enov artou metexomen. (5719)

I am not a Greek scholar, but I do not see the word "symbol" or "symbolize" here. I do see koinwnia, which means fellowship/sharing/participation.

The other translations clearly state that there is no symbolism--we are sharing Jesus' body and blood. Given the history behind the Real Presence, the single translation in the ISV does not hold too much water.
Max, you are 100% correct, and I was going to point this out myself. There is no word in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 that could be translated "sign", and there is no word that could be translated "our", and there is nothing in the Greek that could be translated "of". I can tell you right now, without even knowing who they are, that the ISV translators for this passage were Evangelical Protestants who deny the Real Presence. They have blatantly let their theological biases influence their translation of this passage by inserting the phrase "sign of our sharing" when it should simply be "sharing" or "communion".

The word "koinwnia" (can also be translated "communion") implies an intimate relationship, or intimate binding together. Thus, what Paul in 1 Corinthains 10:16 is saying that the bread is intimately bound up with the body of Christ, and that the cup is intimately bound up with the blood of Christ. This passage is actually perhaps the strongest proof text for Real Presence in the entire NT (and specifically, for the Lutheran view). Which is probably why the Evangelical Protestant ISV translators felt the need to alter it in translation... :teeth:

[Jezz]

It means that Jesus is like a door for sheep. He is the way to the Father. (You remember the whole "way, truth, life" thing, right?) That's what symbolism is: Something is similar to something else in a certain way. In the case of the last supper, John 6, and here, we find metaphors rather than similies.
You missed the point. Allow me to explain.

Although Jesus uses the metaphor of the door, He is using it to express a concrete reality about Himself - He was describing Himself. There are certain features of Jesus that make Him, unlike most people, "a door".

Similarly, when Jesus said "This is my body", He was expressing a concrete reality about the stuff that He was holding in His hand. He was describing the broken bread. He wasn't claiming that the bread represented something - He was claiming that the bread was something. There were certain characteristics about that bread that made it, unlike most bread, "Jesus' body". It simply is Jesus' body. How? I don't know how. Jesus didn't say.

Also, when Jesus used metaphor, He generally went to lengths to explain exactly what the metaphor meant - especially when talking to His disciples in private. That's how we know that it was a metaphor in the "I am the door" case - Jesus goes on to explain at length in exactly what way He is a "door".

But in the case of the Last Supper - His last will and testament, and the last time that He would see His disciples before His death - there is no explanation. Now, clearly He was trying to say that, in some way, the consecrated elements in the Eucharist were the body and blood of Christ. But seeing as how (unlike the "I am the door" example) He doesn't actually explain how they are (or are like) the body and blood of Christ, how do you know that it's a metaphor? Which piece of Scripture tells you that it's a metaphor? Given that Jesus does not explain how the bread is "His body", we shouldn't try to second-guess His meaning but rather take Him at His plain word.

However, it is nice to see that you've realized your error, and realized that Jesus uses metaphors, even about Himself.
I haven't "realised my error", because I haven't made one. I know that Jesus uses metaphors. But all the evidence points to the fact that Jesus was not using a metaphor when He instituted the Last Supper. Why would He not speak plainly in His last will and testament? Why would He leave the door open to risk having people misundertand some of His most important instructions?

[themuzicman]

So, Jesus is a piece of wood on hinges, is he?

Michael

[spl_cadet]

So, Jesus is a piece of wood on hinges, is he?

Michael

No, but you are completely misunderstanding. Christ is indeed a door. But the door is symbolic of something else. However, saying that Christ is speaking symbolically in John 6 creates the absurd notion that either His flesh is symbolic or that "real food and real drink" are symbolic. Given that we are not Gnostics and that Christ said that it was "real food and real drink," a symbolic interpretation simply is not possible.

[Maxentius]

No, but you are completely misunderstanding. Christ is indeed a door. But the door is symbolic of something else. However, saying that Christ is speaking symbolically in John 6 creates the absurd notion that either His flesh is symbolic or that "real food and real drink" are symbolic. Given that we are not Gnostics and that Christ said that it was "real food and real drink," a symbolic interpretation simply is not possible.

Another way to look at it is, just because Jesus used metaphorical language on occasion, does not mean he used it when he instituted the Lord's Supper. I think it is up to the one asserting metaphorical language to prove that it is metaphorical. Otherwise exegesis becomes extreemly difficult.

So, what textual, historical or cultural reason is there to believe that Jesus' words are metaphorical?

So far we have been told that Jesus' language was metaphorical because the covanent was not fulfilled yet, i.e. he had not died and risen yet. We can dispose of this objection, as Jezz did, by pointing out that Jesus is not constrained by time in that way. If he can multiply loves and fish, he can multiply his body and blood.

From Vfarris01, we hear that flesh is useless. But if flesh is as useless as Vfarris says it is, then we call the whole atonement into question.

There seems to be a lot of effort to get around the simple words "this is my body" and "this is my blood" simply because some disagree with the doctrine of the Real Presence. I never understood what the problem was, why not take Jesus at his word?

The scriptural critiques either do not have anything to do with the Real Presence or they actually prove the doctrine of the Real Presence when we read them in context.

I think it takes quite a bit of evidence to overcome Jesus' words plus the fact that no one until Tyndale (to my knowledge) ever bothered to question the doctrine. So far the evidence brought by the the "Sacramentarians" is pretty thin gruel.

[themuzicman]

No, but you are completely misunderstanding. Christ is indeed a door. But the door is symbolic of something else. However, saying that Christ is speaking symbolically in John 6 creates the absurd notion that either His flesh is symbolic or that "real food and real drink" are symbolic. Given that we are not Gnostics and that Christ said that it was "real food and real drink," a symbolic interpretation simply is not possible.


Why not? Real food and Real drink provide REAL LIFE. Those who think they are going on living are denying the fact of their own death. Only Christ provides us with the water that will provide such that we will never thirst again! (See the woman at the well.)

Note that Jesus doesn't jsut say that He is the door, but that He is the door of the sheep pen. So, His essense must be to keep literal sheep from wandering off.

Christ is referring to those things that sustain life, and His point is that He is the source of those things (atonement, justification, sanctification, resurrection) that will bring eternal life.

It still astounds me that you can brush off John 10 so easily as symbollic, and yet cling so tightly to a hyperliteral interpretation of John 6 and the last supper, in spite of 1 Cor 11, and various objections to whether one could eat a broken body that hadn't yet been broken and drink poured out blood that hadn't yet been poured out!

Michael

[Jezz]

Why not? Real food and Real drink provide REAL LIFE.
It seems to me that you answered your own question. If it's real life your after, then it's real food & drink that you need. Metaphorical food & drink = metaphorical life. Do you want real life? Or do you want a metaphorical one?

Funny how you initially claimed that Jesus gave no indication that He was speaking literally. When it is pointed out that He used the strongest literal terms available to Him, you response is to ask why they still can't be interpreted metaphorically. :ahem:

The thing is Muz, anything Jesus said could be interpreted metaphorically. Liberals interpret the resurrection itself as being metaphorical, for example. But the question you should be asking is not "Can Jesus' words here be interpreted metaphorically?", but "Should Jesus' words here be interpreted metaphorically?"

The problem, I think, is that you don't really have a sound methodology for sorting metaphor from literal statement, other than your own personal "incredulity meter". If something seems too fantastic for you, then you claim that it's a metaphor, and that seems to be your only guide. The problem with this methodology is that it makes you and your reason the final arbiter of what is and is not possible for Jesus to have meant. You're adjusting Scripture/Jesus to fit your ideas about what it/He should be, remaking them in your own image - an image that you are comfortable with. As I have pointed out several times, this is what Liberals do (although I do grant that you don't do nearly as much remolding as they do). You need to let Scripture and the history of the Church tell you what Jesus meant - not your own personal incredulity - and remold yourself and your beliefs to fit Him, not the other way around.

Those who think they are going on living are denying the fact of their own death. Only Christ provides us with the water that will provide such that we will never thirst again! (See the woman at the well.)
Yes. And that's why Christ instituted the Eucharist - so that we could come and receive the life-giving real food and drink that would satisfy our hunger. It's a pity that you see this food and drink as only a metaphor, because I wouldn't want for you to aspire to a metaphorical life.

Note that Jesus doesn't jsut say that He is the door, but that He is the door of the sheep pen. So, His essense must be to keep literal sheep from wandering off.
Again, you miss the point.

In calling Himself "the door", Jesus is saying He is not like the average human being. He has an additional role, over and above the rest of humanity. While fully human, He is different from other human beings in an important way. Thus, He is saying that unlike other people He has properties in common with that of a gate for a sheep pen.

Likewise, when Jesus called the bread His body and the wine His blood, He is saying that they are not normal bread and wine. After being consecrated, they were no longer normal bread and wine - rather He is saying that they had properties in common with His body and blood.

Unlike the parable where Jesus calls Himself the gate, He does not explain the manner in which the bread and wine share the properties of the body and blood. Neither does Scripture anywhere else. The closest we get is by Paul in 1 Corinthans 10:16 does argue that the bread is intimately bound up with Jesus' body, and the cup is intimately bound up with Jesus' blood. In other words, Paul supports a "Real Presence" interpretation of the Words of Institution.

Christ is referring to those things that sustain life, and His point is that He is the source of those things (atonement, justification, sanctification, resurrection) that will bring eternal life.
Indeed. But how does that disprove Real Presence? I would have thought that, if anything, the above facts are made all the more real by the Real Presence doctrine.

It still astounds me that you can brush off John 10 so easily as symbollic, and yet cling so tightly to a hyperliteral interpretation of John 6 and the last supper
The fact that you are "astounded" is an argument from incredulity and does not carry any weight.

You are again forgetting that "symbolic" is not the same thing as metaphorical. A symbol can be either literal or metaphorical. I believe that Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is symbolic - but I believe that it is literal as well. I will substitute "metaphorical" for "symbolic" in your above claims.

Your argument for John 6 being a metaphor is based not on exegesis, but on incredulity and generalisation. Neither is a good reason for rejecting a doctrine. The first is obviously faulty (it is the same reason that liberals reject the resurrection). The second is also faulty: proving that Jesus used metaphors sometimes does not prove that He used them all the time. It is because you have no sound method for sorting metaphor from literal statement that you have a mental block towards accepting God's truth on this matter.

So how do we determine what's metaphor and what's literal? Well, its really quite simple and involves a few common sense rules (listed in rough order of importance):

1. If scripture explicitly tells us that it's a metaphor, then its a metaphor.

2. The success of a metaphor relies heavily on the audience realising that the metaphor is to be understood. Thus, the people best situated to determine if a literal or metaphorical meaning is intended is the target audience. We thus rely heavily on their interpretation.

3. Related to the previous point: The early Church was the target audience of the Gospels and the epistles. If the early Church understanding of a passage is unanimous, then that needs to be taken very seriously. They were in a better position to judge than us - they could ask the apostles for clarification if they were confused. (The best reason for rejecting liberal interpretations of Paul and his alleged "metaphorical resurrection" is because the early Church unanimously rejected this position.)

4. Jesus tended to reserve metaphors for His public appearances, whereas in private with His disciples He spoke more plainly. The reason for this is quite straightforward: If He had spoken plainly in public, He wouldn't have managed to evade the authorities for as long as He did. (Eg: Mark 4:34 He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.)

5. Jesus did not tend to use one-liners for metaphors. He tended to explain them in more detail - thus making the metaphorical nature of what He said

Rather than use a subjective measure like incredulity as the basis for sorting metaphor from literal statement, I apply the above factors. There's no inconsistency about this.

As for John 10 - note verse 6: Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. That's why I believe Jesus was using a figure of speech here - because John explicitly tells us that He was! This trumps all other considerations here (although note that it would probably still qualify as a metaphor on other grounds).

Now, let's look at the Words of Institution:

1. The Scriptures do not anywhere claim that this is a metaphor. A tick for the "literal" interpetation.
2. We are not explicitly told what the target audience thought, so this point doesn't tip the scales either way.
3. The early Christians unanimously interpreted this as teaching Real Presence. A big tick in the "literal" box.
4. Jesus was speaking in private to His disciples. Morever, this was a solemn occasion as it was the last time that He would have to explain things to them before His death, so it is not likely He would try and speak in a potentially confusing way.
5. It was a one-liner. He didn't explain it in more detail.

Thus, the indications here are that Jesus was not trying to use a metaphor - rather, He was intending His words to be taken as teaching the Real Presence.

...in spite of 1 Cor 11...
1 Corinthians 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

If it was normal bread and wine, why does eating/drinking it have such dire consequences? And what's that about "recognizing the body of the Lord" - why is that necessary?

I fail to see how 1 Corinthians 11 is an argument against Real Presence. In fact, the above statement tends to indicate quite the opposite. You're incredulous that we can hold to Real Presence "in spite of" 1 Corinthians 11 - when in fact we hold this position in part because of 1 Corinthians 11!

...and various objections to whether one could eat a broken body that hadn't yet been broken and drink poured out blood that hadn't yet been poured out!
I've dealt with this objection on at least two occasions now, and both times you've dodged it. Allow me to summarise:

1. Your assertion that the Real Presence teaches that body "hadn't yet been broken" is simply false:
a. The bread was His body.
b. The bread was broken before they ate it.
c. Therefore, His body was broken before they ate it.
Similarly for the blood. Your objection does not apply.

2. As with so many of your objections, this is even more of a problem for your interpretation. As you quite rightly point out, Jesus was speaking of the body and blood as if they has already been broken/poured out. Yet you claim that this did not happen until the next day!

In point of fact, this very objection is strong evidence in favour of Real Presence.

[Solly]

Eucharistic discussions can be long and tortuous, and often miss the fact that a whole world view lies behind such a doctrine - that which is influenced by the metaphysics of Greek philosophy [neoPlatonism] and its effects upon the interpretation of scripture. For the Sacrementalists, there is a view of the interpenetration of this physical lower order of reality by a higher order, reaching its culmination in the Eucharist; but not only there, hence the idea of holy objects and places like icons, churches, graveyards, priests. The sacramental view also gives us churches as sacred spaces, priests, altars, holy water, etc and all the paraphanalia of a revived Jewish cultus.
For those of us who are not of a sacramental world view, all such things are a misreading and misdirection, and it is no point quoting ECFs at us, since at one point the church turned Arian from the Emporer down. Athanasius contra Mundum. And EO/RCC differences, ie, the Filioque, the Pope, are evidence that the ECF are not as clear cut on matters as some would have us believe. It's St Augustine in RCC, Blessed Augustine in EO. Origen is clearly a heretic over here.
For myself, from a theological view, I consider the Real Presence as exemplified in RCC and EO doctrine to be a serious misunderstanding reflecting that Greek metaphysic rather than Biblical reality. Christ indwells believers, and he does so by his Spirit; he does not indwell us by his humanity, rather he shares our humanity and takes it into the presence of God - that is a real presence that matters!! He does not indwell objects. Nor does he impart life or grace by the material instrumentality of objects, objects which can be removed as part of ecclesial discipline and thus endangering to the spiritual life of the recipient. It is interesting how some quarters of the charismatic world have returned to such a metaphysic, with its praying the blood on objects, anointing with oil, cleansing of rooms and houses, etc.
We can argue a lot about the meaning of words, but if we don't check our premises, we will be arguing past each other.
The context of Jesus' words is the Passover, itself a symbolic act. Jesus is reinterpreting that act in the light of his own work. Notice how the lamb is not to the fore anymore, only the concommitants of bread and wine. He renews the covenant, using the symbols of bread and wine to draw together that which underlies the sacrificial lamb sacrificed once for all - there is no meat at our table, no further sacrifice, only memorials of his death till he come, and the presentation of ourselves as free will offerings,living sacrifices.

[themuzicman]

It seems to me that you answered your own question. If it's real life your after, then it's real food & drink that you need. Metaphorical food & drink = metaphorical life. Do you want real life? Or do you want a metaphorical one?

Funny how you initially claimed that Jesus gave no indication that He was speaking literally. When it is pointed out that He used the strongest literal terms available to Him, you response is to ask why they still can't be interpreted metaphorically. :ahem:

Hello? Metaphors tell us something about reality. If metaphors couldn't reflect reality, they wouldn't be good for much, would they...

The thing is Muz, anything Jesus said could be interpreted metaphorically. Liberals interpret the resurrection itself as being metaphorical, for example. But the question you should be asking is not "Can Jesus' words here be interpreted metaphorically?", but "Should Jesus' words here be interpreted metaphorically?"

Exactly. In light of the remainder of scripture and especially in light of the timing of the last supper, the eating of Christ's body and blood are prime candidates for metaphoric language.

The problem, I think, is that you don't really have a sound methodology for sorting metaphor from literal statement, other than your own personal "incredulity meter". If something seems too fantastic for you, then you claim that it's a metaphor, and that seems to be your only guide. The problem with this methodology is that it makes you and your reason the final arbiter of what is and is not possible for Jesus to have meant. You're adjusting Scripture/Jesus to fit your ideas about what it/He should be, remaking them in your own image - an image that you are comfortable with. As I have pointed out several times, this is what Liberals do (although I do grant that you don't do nearly as much remolding as they do). You need to let Scripture and the history of the Church tell you what Jesus meant - not your own personal incredulity - and remold yourself and your beliefs to fit Him, not the other way around.

That, and the problem of whether Christ's body was broken and His blood already poured out when He said He gave that to them.

Yes. And that's why Christ instituted the Eucharist - so that we could come and receive the life-giving real food and drink that would satisfy our hunger. It's a pity that you see this food and drink as only a metaphor, because I wouldn't want for you to aspire to a metaphorical life.

Gee, Paul says that it's "you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." Jesus said "remember me". Nothing about satisfying the hunger or any of that when the time came.

You care to back up what you say with something more than your claim?

Again, you miss the point.

In calling Himself "the door", Jesus is saying He is not like the average human being. He has an additional role, over and above the rest of humanity. While fully human, He is different from other human beings in an important way. Thus, He is saying that unlike other people He has properties in common with that of a gate for a sheep pen.

A metaphor? Really? Wow, what a concept. (Yes, you just described a metaphor. A rose by any other name...)

Likewise, when Jesus called the bread His body and the wine His blood, He is saying that they are not normal bread and wine. After being consecrated, they were no longer normal bread and wine - rather He is saying that they had properties in common with His body and blood.

Metaphorically, just like the door thing.

Unlike the parable where Jesus calls Himself the gate, He does not explain the manner in which the bread and wine share the properties of the body and blood. Neither does Scripture anywhere else. The closest we get is by Paul in 1 Corinthans 10:16 does argue that the bread is intimately bound up with Jesus' body, and the cup is intimately bound up with Jesus' blood. In other words, Paul supports a "Real Presence" interpretation of the Words of Institution.

Except that there isn't anything to support.

Indeed. But how does that disprove Real Presence? I would have thought that, if anything, the above facts are made all the more real by the Real Presence doctrine.

Except the part about metaphors and the problem of whether Jesus' body was broken and His blood poured out at the last supper.

The fact that you are "astounded" is an argument from incredulity and does not carry any weight.

The fact that you can't identify a metaphor when you see one is your problem.

You are again forgetting that "symbolic" is not the same thing as metaphorical. A symbol can be either literal or metaphorical. I believe that Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is symbolic - but I believe that it is literal as well. I will substitute "metaphorical" for "symbolic" in your above claims.

A metaphor is a form of symbolic language. Either way, symbolic has the context of representing something else. Thus, the bread represents Christ's body, but isn't literally Christ's body. The wine represents Christ's blood, but isn't literally Christ's blood. They are both symbols.

You can stop trying to play both sides of the fence, now.

Your argument for John 6 being a metaphor is based not on exegesis, but on incredulity and generalisation.

Incredulity? Hardly. You've now pigeonholed me and are puttintg words in my mouth. A sure sign that you know you've lost.

My argument for John 6 being a metaphor is based upon the larger context of scripture, and physical reality.

Neither is a good reason for rejecting a doctrine. The first is obviously faulty (it is the same reason that liberals reject the resurrection). The second is also faulty: proving that Jesus used metaphors sometimes does not prove that He used them all the time. It is because you have no sound method for sorting metaphor from literal statement that you have a mental block towards accepting God's truth on this matter.

Except that taking the last supper literally has serious problems reflecting reality.

So how do we determine what's metaphor and what's literal? Well, its really quite simple and involves a few common sense rules (listed in rough order of importance):

1. If scripture explicitly tells us that it's a metaphor, then its a metaphor.

2. The success of a metaphor relies heavily on the audience realising that the metaphor is to be understood. Thus, the people best situated to determine if a literal or metaphorical meaning is intended is the target audience. We thus rely heavily on their interpretation.

The apostles hadn't seen Christ's body broken or His blood poured out for them at the last supper. The bread and wine could only have been symbolic.

Now, that wasn't too hard, was it?

3. Related to the previous point: The early Church was the target audience of the Gospels and the epistles. If the early Church understanding of a passage is unanimous, then that needs to be taken very seriously. They were in a better position to judge than us - they could ask the apostles for clarification if they were confused. (The best reason for rejecting liberal interpretations of Paul and his alleged "metaphorical resurrection" is because the early Church unanimously rejected this position.)

Doesn't mean they were right.

4. Jesus tended to reserve metaphors for His public appearances, whereas in private with His disciples He spoke more plainly. The reason for this is quite straightforward: If He had spoken plainly in public, He wouldn't have managed to evade the authorities for as long as He did. (Eg: Mark 4:34 He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.)

And, oddly enough, John 6 was in public.

5. Jesus did not tend to use one-liners for metaphors. He tended to explain them in more detail - thus making the metaphorical nature of what He said.

The last supper was a repeated metaphor.

Rather than use a subjective measure like incredulity as the basis for sorting metaphor from literal statement, I apply the above factors. There's no inconsistency about this.

Again, putting words in my mouth.

As for John 10 - note verse 6: Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. That's why I believe Jesus was using a figure of speech here - because John explicitly tells us that He was! This trumps all other considerations here (although note that it would probably still qualify as a metaphor on other grounds).

Words that lack a reflection of reality tend to be metaphors, too.

Now, let's look at the Words of Institution:

1. The Scriptures do not anywhere claim that this is a metaphor. A tick for the "literal" interpetation.

Paul certainly indicates this, as does Christ's reference in John 6, in public.

2. We are not explicitly told what the target audience thought, so this point doesn't tip the scales either way.
3. The early Christians unanimously interpreted this as teaching Real Presence. A big tick in the "literal" box.
4. Jesus was speaking in private to His disciples. Morever, this was a solemn occasion as it was the last time that He would have to explain things to them before His death, so it is not likely He would try and speak in a potentially confusing way.

But He DID have much time with them after the resurrection. So, it wasn't as though this was the last word on the subject. Furthermore, the disciples had the context of the Jewish heritage, which pointed to a symbolic meaning in the bread and the wine. Jesus didn't just make up this little ceremony, and then present it to them without explanation or context. It occurred in the context of passover.

The disciples knew what passover meant, and understood clearly what Jesus meant when the bread was broken, and Jesus said it was His body. It was a reference to the first passover, where they broke bread, and the angel of death passed over them.

They also understood covenant, and understood the necessity of blood for covenant, and understood that Jesus blood wasn't literally being poured out or them into the cup for them to drink, but that the blood was poured out for the new covenant.

You've completely ignored the Jewish context of the last supper. The eating of the passover was an act of faith, which brought the people of Israel out into the desert to establish a covenant with God, and passover was, more than anything else, as reminder that God delivered them from Egypt, and a reminder of the covenant that followed.

In the same way, Jesus was about to establish a new covenant, and the eating wasn't as important in the ceremony as the breaking of the bread and the pouring of wine, both clear symbols from the passover.

And now the bread and the wine were taking on new symbolic meaning in the new covenant. Do this in rememnberance of [Him].

5. It was a one-liner. He didn't explain it in more detail.

Thus, the indications here are that Jesus was not trying to use a metaphor - rather, He was intending His words to be taken as teaching the Real Presence.

Other than the problem of cultural context, you might have a point.

1 Corinthians 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

If it was normal bread and wine, why does eating/drinking it have such dire consequences? And what's that about "recognizing the body of the Lord" - why is that necessary?

I fail to see how 1 Corinthians 11 is an argument against Real Presence. In fact, the above statement tends to indicate quite the opposite. You're incredulous that we can hold to Real Presence "in spite of" 1 Corinthians 11 - when in fact we hold this position in part because of 1 Corinthians 11!

Only because you fail to see the real significance of the last supper. If you are taking the last supper without seriously considering the meaning of the last supper, you are profaning Christ's body and His death. You don't need real presence to profane someone. I can profane George Washington by going and spitting on a monument to him just as well as spitting on him personally (if that were possible.) Real presense isn't necessary for recognizing the body of the Lord.

I've dealt with this objection on at least two occasions now, and both times you've dodged it. Allow me to summarise:

1. Your assertion that the Real Presence teaches that body "hadn't yet been broken" is simply false:
a. The bread was His body.
b. The bread was broken before they ate it.
c. Therefore, His body was broken before they ate it.
Similarly for the blood. Your objection does not apply.

2. As with so many of your objections, this is even more of a problem for your interpretation. As you quite rightly point out, Jesus was speaking of the body and blood as if they has already been broken/poured out. Yet you claim that this did not happen until the next day!

Ah, another example of symbolic langugage. Thank you for making my point! as if is symbolic language, in this case a similie. You just said that Jesus was speaking symbolically about the bread and the wine being broken and poured out, even though they weren't!

Again, this is speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You want literal and symbolic, so as to make your theology work. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

If it is literally His body and blood, then they would already need to be broken and poured out, which they weren't, as you just said.

If it is symbolically His body and blood, then it wasn't real presence.

Ergo, it wasn't real presence.

In point of fact, this very objection is strong evidence in favour of Real Presence.

Other than the very real problems of heremeneutics, cultural context, and a whole scriptural view of the symbols involved, you'd be right. Unfortunately....

Michael

[Maxentius]

Hello Solly,

Good post. I disagree of course. :smile:

For the Sacrementalists, there is a view of the interpenetration of this physical lower order of reality by a higher order, reaching its culmination in the Eucharist; but not only there, hence the idea of holy objects and places like icons, churches, graveyards, priests. The sacramental view also gives us churches as sacred spaces, priests, altars, holy water, etc and all the paraphanalia of a revived Jewish cultus.

Just to clarify, I think something done according to God's word and command becomes holy. Just as we are made holy by God's grace, God's word and promise add to mere bread and wine a holiness they do not intrinsically possess. God is the Lord and Creator of the universe, he brought it into being out of nothing etc. Certainly he can separate (make holy) parts of his creation for his purposes!

If I misunderstand you please correct me. But do you deny that physical things can be holy? Is holiness only an attribute of spiritual things? For the lack of a better way of stating it, is matter intrinsically good or not? I think matter is intrinsically good because God made it, but because of our sin matter is corrupted and subjected to decay.

Also, our human nature is intrinsically good, but sin corrupts it and cripples it so that we are slaves to sin--but sin is not part of our human nature it adheres to it. This is important because if sin is part of our human nature, then when Jesus became man he had a sinful nature. If that is true all the things we believe about his being a perfect sacrafice comes to nothing.

For those of us who are not of a sacramental world view, all such things are a misreading and misdirection, and it is no point quoting ECFs at us, since at one point the church turned Arian from the Emporer down. Athanasius contra Mundum. And EO/RCC differences, ie, the Filioque, the Pope, are evidence that the ECF are not as clear cut on matters as some would have us believe. It's St Augustine in RCC, Blessed Augustine in EO. Origen is clearly a heretic over here.

This is the root of the problem I think. Many think that the "misdirection" is due to the matter involved. I do not have a problem with matter, I think it is good. :smile:

Also, this is the main reason I reject Tradition as an un-normed norm. Tradition subordinated to Scripture is quite useful though.

The purpose of quoting the ECF is to show what early Christians believed. If they disagree certainly we can point that out and not accept them as authoritative. But if they are in unanimous or even near unanimous agreement that is quite a different story. Basically, unless we have strong scriptural evidence that the ECF are wrong, they should get the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise we basically say, without clear warrent from Scripture, that we know more than those who were closer to the events at hand, who shared the same cultural assumptions and languages. I think that is a bit hubristic.

For myself, from a theological view, I consider the Real Presence as exemplified in RCC and EO doctrine to be a serious misunderstanding reflecting that Greek metaphysic rather than Biblical reality.

The RCC believe in Transsubstantiation. That what we eat and drink look, feel, smell, taste etc. like bread and wine but that their essences are Jesus' body and blood. That is based on Aristotalean categories. The EO view is that Jesus' body and blood are present in the bread and wine, but it does not explain how it is so. I do not see how the EO view (which also tracks the Lutheran view) is based on platonic categories. Perhaps you could explain.

Christ indwells believers, and he does so by his Spirit; he does not indwell us by his humanity, rather he shares our humanity and takes it into the presence of God - that is a real presence that matters!!

How do you know he does not indwell in us by his humanity? I think you are guilty of circular reasoning here.

He does not indwell objects. Nor does he impart life or grace by the material instrumentality of objects, objects which can be removed as part of ecclesial discipline and thus endangering to the spiritual life of the recipient.

This goes back to my earlier question. It seems to me that you believe that there is something in material things, or matter, which stops them from being used for God's salvation purposes.

You say that God does not indwell objects. I ask, what do you make of the Incarnation? Is Jesus' body not an object?

Also, we know that the Jesus dwells in Christians. Are Christians not objects? Or does he only indweel their spirits?

Regarding God using physical things and making them holy, didn't God tell Moses to take of his sandals because he was standing on holy gound? Are you saying that the ground wasn't really holy? It was holy, becuse God said it was. Just like the elements in Holy Communion are holy because Jesus set them apart for the remission of sins--a holy divinely instituted act utilizing parts of God's own creation to bring about salvation..

It is interesting how some quarters of the charismatic world have returned to such a metaphysic, with its praying the blood on objects, anointing with oil, cleansing of rooms and houses, etc.

This is because a salvation that is only spiritually based does not take into account that we are spiritual AND physical beings--it only sees half of us. That is one reason why God uses physical objects to effect his will. We are not angels who are by nature spirits, we are physical beings infused with the image of God. A completely physical salvation would be just as lacking. So by nature, a church that over-concentrates on the spiritual side of the salvation equation will see a reaction that attempts to correct the imbalance. If I may say (and I do not mean to offend), you seem to see matter as somehow dirty and unworthy of God.

The context of Jesus' words is the Passover, itself a symbolic act. Jesus is reinterpreting that act in the light of his own work. Notice how the lamb is not to the fore anymore, only the concommitants of bread and wine.

Yes, the Passover symbolized Jesus taking away the sin of the world, he will "pass over" his people who will not be condemned, but those who are not his will be condemned. The first passover was a type of the second passover.

The Last Supper is the realization of the promise of the first Passover. When we eat his flesh and drink his blood we receive new life, according to his promise "for the remiaaion of sins", which IS new life.

That is the context of Jesus' words.

[themuzicman]

How do you know he does not indwell in us by his humanity? I think you are guilty of circular reasoning here.

If that were the case, then Jesus' essence wouldn't be human, anymore. That is not in the essense of what it means to be human.

Michael

[Maxentius]

If that were the case, then Jesus' essence wouldn't be human, anymore. That is not in the essense of what it means to be human.

Michael

If we divide Jesus' human nature from his divine nature, we may fall into Nestorianism, which divided Jesus' person into two. Is there a place where Jesus' divine nature is and his human nature is not? I would answer no. It is a mystery similar to the mystery of the Incarnation. How can Jesus be 100% God and 100% man at the same time?

[themuzicman]

I'm not dividing them. I'm saying that if Jesus' nature is trulyhuman, then he has every attribute that perfect human would possess, which would include a finite, corporeal body. If He were to indwell us in His humanity, He wouldn't possess the essense of humanity, anymore, and, thus, wouldn't be fully human.

Michael

[Solly]

Only time for some quick replies...

Just to clarify, I think something done according to God's word and command becomes holy. Just as we are made holy by God's grace, God's word and promise add to mere bread and wine a holiness they do not intrinsically possess. God is the Lord and Creator of the universe, he brought it into being out of nothing etc. Certainly he can separate (make holy) parts of his creation for his purposes!

If I misunderstand you please correct me. But do you deny that physical things can be holy? Is holiness only an attribute of spiritual things? For the lack of a better way of stating it, is matter intrinsically good or not? I think matter is intrinsically good because God made it, but because of our sin matter is corrupted and subjected to decay.

The question is, what is holiness. For some it is an attribute, a quality that we can possess in variying degrees, like saints. Holiness is first of separation from something to something. that's it's root meaning. while buildings etc can be separated for a particular use, they don't change qualitatively, they don't grow holier. This is part of the Protestant critique of the sacramental churches. That separation, since it primarily involves rational beings, then leads to those things we call holy behaviour, because our separation is from sin. It's not a question of whether matter is good or not; obejcts can be separated for use, but not change in the process. The symbols do not change, nor is there addition. Protestant, insofar as they accept a real presence, would say Christ is present to his people as the Body gathers together, but not that he somehow inheres in the bread and wine, and it is covered over by the rubric of mystery. When Calvinists speak of the mystery of election they are poo-poohed as hiding behind that fact to avoid further discussion. it's not enough to say we don't know how, but it happens. It has to fit into the Biblical revelation.

Also, our human nature is intrinsically good, but sin corrupts it and cripples it so that we are slaves to sin--but sin is not part of our human nature it adheres to it. This is important because if sin is part of our human nature, then when Jesus became man he had a sinful nature. If that is true all the things we believe about his being a perfect sacrafice comes to nothing.

No. Christ assumed a body that was free from, separated from, sin, by the Spirit's work. Sin very much resides in our nature, that is the doctrine of Total depravity. Our nature underlies our will, and that is why we sin.

The purpose of quoting the ECF is to show what early Christians believed. If they disagree certainly we can point that out and not accept them as authoritative. But if they are in unanimous or even near unanimous agreement that is quite a different story. Basically, unless we have strong scriptural evidence that the ECF are wrong, they should get the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise we basically say, without clear warrent from Scripture, that we know more than those who were closer to the events at hand, who shared the same cultural assumptions and languages. I think that is a bit hubristic.

Chronological snobbery can work both ways. If it can be shown that the church took on board neoPlatonism to too great an extent, as the claim is made against many of the ECF, then we from our greater distance must get back beyond that.

The RCC believe in Transsubstantiation. That what we eat and drink look, feel, smell, taste etc. like bread and wine but that their essences are Jesus' body and blood. That is based on Aristotalean categories. The EO view is that Jesus' body and blood are present in the bread and wine, but it does not explain how it is so. I do not see how the EO view (which also tracks the Lutheran view) is based on platonic categories. Perhaps you could explain.
Not in depth at the moment. Sacramentalism owes much to neoPlatonism, not Biblicism. it is a world view of spiritual realities, of levels of being, and we have a helping hand up by ingesting that which comes from above. It sounds a lot like the scriptural view, which is why it got taken on board, but it isn't scriptural.

How do you know he does not indwell in us by his humanity? I think you are guilty of circular reasoning here.

Because he does not indwell us bodily, only spiritually, by the agency of the Holy Spirit. that Spirit of Christ has that humanity, but you are making it dependant on his physicality. Humanity is obviously not entirely dependant on our physicality, because of the separation that takes place at death.

This goes back to my earlier question. It seems to me that you believe that there is something in material things, or matter, which stops them from being used for God's salvation purposes.

You say that God does not indwell objects. I ask, what do you make of the Incarnation? Is Jesus' body not an object?

Also, we know that the Jesus dwells in Christians. Are Christians not objects? Or does he only indweel their spirits?
False assumption I think. Bodies are not objects they are persons, and when you are dead there is no indwelling.

Regarding God using physical things and making them holy, didn't God tell Moses to take of his sandals because he was standing on holy gound? Are you saying that the ground wasn't really holy? It was holy, becuse God said it was. Just like the elements in Holy Communion are holy because Jesus set them apart for the remission of sins--a holy divinely instituted act utilizing parts of God's own creation to bring about salvation..

Holy=set apart.

This is because a salvation that is only spiritually based does not take into account that we are spiritual AND physical beings--it only sees half of us. That is one reason why God uses physical objects to effect his will. We are not angels who are by nature spirits, we are physical beings infused with the image of God. A completely physical salvation would be just as lacking. So by nature, a church that over-concentrates on the spiritual side of the salvation equation will see a reaction that attempts to correct the imbalance. If I may say (and I do not mean to offend), you seem to see matter as somehow dirty and unworthy of God.

You can say it, but you are wrong. Creation groans for the redemption of the sons of God; but creation is not indwelt by the Spirit. I am a monist, not a dualist, so I have nop problem with materiality. However, objects do not become holy in the way you assume.

Yes, the Passover symbolized Jesus taking away the sin of the world, he will "pass over" his people who will not be condemned, but those who are not his will be condemned. The first passover was a type of the second passover.

The Last Supper is the realization of the promise of the first Passover. When we eat his flesh and drink his blood we receive new life, according to his promise "for the remiaaion of sins", which IS new life.

That is the context of Jesus' words.

We receive new life when we believe. What about the believers before Christ instituted the passover. The dying thief, and all the ot saints - how did they get life?

[Jezz]

Hey Solly!

Eucharistic discussions can be long and tortuous, and often miss the fact that a whole world view lies behind such a doctrine - that which is influenced by the metaphysics of Greek philosophy [neoPlatonism] and its effects upon the interpretation of scripture. For the Sacrementalists, there is a view of the interpenetration of this physical lower order of reality by a higher order, reaching its culmination in the Eucharist; but not only there, hence the idea of holy objects and places like icons, churches, graveyards, priests. The sacramental view also gives us churches as sacred spaces, priests, altars, holy water, etc and all the paraphanalia of a revived Jewish cultus.
I agree that this is about world view differences. But I think you've got it precisely backwards. The Greek/Platonic view worked against Real Presence. In the Platonic view, God was far above the created world - not intimately involved with it. It was neo-Platonic influence that gave rise to Christian Gnosticism, which denied the incarnation. Note that when the ECFs talk about Real Presence, it is invariably likened to the incarnation. In fact, we find that when Irenaeus refutes the various Gnostic heresies floating around in Against Heresies, one of the heresies they seem to hold is a denial of the Real Presence:

But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body.

There is also the fact that the Eucharistic practice caused Christians to be accused of cannibalism by the pagans. This historical fact would be hard to explain if, as you claim, the Real Presence understanding came from Hellenistic thought and not from Christian.

Thus, Real Presence was something that went against Hellenistic philosophy. The Hellenistic world abhored the idea that the divine would associate itself so intimately with the corruptible world of flesh.

Moreover, you seem to contraduct yourself here. On the one hand, you claim that sacramentalism is a neo-Platonic intrusion into Christianity - and then you go on to claim that the sacramental view is what gave us the Jewish "paraphanalia" (as you call it). Well, I certainly agree with you that sacramentalism came from Judaism (that's what makes it the authentic Christian view :smile:), but that flatly contradicts your claim that it is a Platonic influence!

You're right, Solly - this is about world view differences. But it was not neo-Platonism that caused the early Church to falsely accept Real Presence - as I established above, this is backwards. Rather, it is our modern Western world view - the rationalistic, naturalistic, anti-mystical, anti-spiritual view of the post-Enlightenment age - which has infiltrated our modern Christianity and caused many to reject Real Presence. This rejection comes on purely rationalistic/naturalistic grounds, and not based on a plain reading of Scripture, nor on the historic Christian understanding. Paul and the other apostles would not have been at home in such a world view - and neither, for that matter, would Jesus. The West as a whole is largely "spiritually deaf" - we have lost the ability to discern the spiritual world as a result of attacks by scientific rationalism - the same attacks that have led some to even claim that the resurrection was meant to be metaphorical.

Take one example: your argument (and that of Muz) is that the Eucharist was a "symbol" and therefore "not Real Presence". But to the spiritually attuned Christians of the first century, this is a false dichotomy (which is why I have insisted that people use "metaphor" to describe the Eucharist, if that is what they mean). The Eucharist is both a symbol and a Real Presence. It is modern Western thinking that sees these two as dichotomous.

For those of us who are not of a sacramental world view, all such things are a misreading and misdirection...
Of course it seems that way to those who are not of a sacramental world view. But the thing is, the early Christians belonged to a sacramental world view, and the NT was written for such an audience. Therefore, if you want to understand the Bible as it was meant to be understood, you can only do so from the point of view of such a world view. It is those who are outside such a world view who will commit misreadings and misdirections - not those inside.

...and it is no point quoting ECFs at us, since at one point the church turned Arian from the Emporer down. Athanasius contra Mundum.
This is exaggerated. It was never the entire church that turned Arian - if it had, there would have been no orthodox Christians left to overthrow it. Athanasius had plenty of friends, not the least of which were Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus- three of the greatest theologians the Church has seen (and all four of which taught Real Presence... :smile:).

Besides which, how did the Nicenes defeat Arianism? It was not sola scriptura - because the Arians had alternative interpretations of scripture which they felt supported their position (in fact, it was for this reason that the Council of Nicea didn't stick to scriptural passages when formulating the Creed, because they realised that it would not be sufficient to discriminate against Arianism). No, ultimately the reason why orthodoxy triumphed at Nicea was an appeal to Church consensus: the Church had always and everywhere worshipped Jesus, while holding that created beings were not allowed to be worshipped; they can't have all been mistaken, therefore Jesus is not a created being. And the reason why orthodoxy triumphed over Arianism for the second and final time at Constantinople 381 was the same - the orthodox supporters like Athanasius and the Cappadocians pointed back to Nicea and earlier traditions (they coined the phrase "one being in three persons" - a phrase that originated with Tertullian a long time before Nicea). Were it not for the authority of a Church consensus and the witness of the tradition of the Church, Arianism would not have been defeated.

And EO/RCC differences, ie, the Filioque, the Pope, are evidence that the ECF are not as clear cut on matters as some would have us believe. It's St Augustine in RCC, Blessed Augustine in EO. Origen is clearly a heretic over here.
This is completely irrelevant. It is true that on some issues, the ECFs are not clear cut, and that has led to division between East and West. But Real Presence was not one of these issues - on this issue, the ECFs are completely clear, and East and West are both in agreement (although they disagree on the specifics).

For myself, from a theological view, I consider the Real Presence as exemplified in RCC and EO doctrine to be a serious misunderstanding reflecting that Greek metaphysic rather than Biblical reality.
And that is because, as I pointed out above, your own world view is causing serious misunderstanding - reflecting the naturalist metaphysic rather than Biblical reality.

Besides which, you're forgetting another fact. There are communions around today that are neither RCC nor EO, and trace their origins back to the 4th and 5th centuries. They are the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East. These churches are significant because they are not all Greek. Many of them are of the Syrian tradition. The Assyrian Church, for example, was based in Persia - Syriac-speaking and a long-time enemy of Rome, and a place that (to my knowledge) Alexander's armies never reached. There is even a church in India that claims Thomas as their founder - a claim that has some historical merit. It would be hard to accuse all of these churches of letting the "Greek metaphysic" infiltrate their teachings. And yet, they all teach the Real Presence too.

And there's also that annoying little passage written by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 10:16 - for which I've not seen any "real absence" proponent give an adequate answer (though I have seen some - eg, the ISV translators - try and dodge it rather than accept it). This is where Paul claims that the bread is communion of the body of Christ, and the cup is communion of the blood of Christ. Remembering that the word is "koinwnia" - a word which implies intimate relationship. In other words, a pretty misleading word for Paul to use if he's not trying to teach Real Presence. :teeth: Now, I'm sure that you could explain this in a way that didn't support Real Presence doctrine, but the question is, why should you? Why deny the plain words of Scripture?

Christ indwells believers, and he does so by his Spirit; he does not indwell us by his humanity, rather he shares our humanity and takes it into the presence of God - that is a real presence that matters!! He does not indwell objects. Nor does he impart life or grace by the material instrumentality of objects, objects which can be removed as part of ecclesial discipline and thus endangering to the spiritual life of the recipient.
And you complain because I quoted ECFs? Why should I believe you when you only quote yourself? :teeth:

It is interesting how some quarters of the charismatic world have returned to such a metaphysic, with its praying the blood on objects, anointing with oil, cleansing of rooms and houses, etc.
It is unsurprising. The human soul has an innate longing for the spiritual, because that's the way that God created us - in order that we might seek Him. It is for this same reason that New Age religions are also popular. People still long to fill that spiritual yearning but find it missing from so many of our Western churches.

We can argue a lot about the meaning of words, but if we don't check our premises, we will be arguing past each other.
I know. My premises are quite simple:

1. The early Christians were not dumb, and were just as good at theology as we are.
2. The early Christians had an advantage that we didn't - they had teaching of the apostles fresh in living memory, who in turn got it straight from Jesus Himself.
3. The early Christians had another advantage that we don't - being native Greek and Aramaic speakers and better accustomed to the writing conventions of that time, they were better positioned to understand the NT and distinguish what was intended to be metaphor from what was intended to be literal.

My conclusion follows quite straightforwardly from these premises.

The context of Jesus' words is the Passover, itself a symbolic act. Jesus is reinterpreting that act in the light of his own work. Notice how the lamb is not to the fore anymore, only the concommitants of bread and wine. He renews the covenant, using the symbols of bread and wine to draw together that which underlies the sacrificial lamb sacrificed once for all - there is no meat at our table, no further sacrifice, only memorials of his death till he come, and the presentation of ourselves as free will offerings,living sacrifices.
Do you think the significance of the Passover as a type prefiguring the Eucharist was not noticed by the early Christians? I assure you, the significance thereof was not lost on them. In all probability, they understood it better than you and me. As a matter of fact, upon writing the previous sentence I decided to go and look for instances in the ECFs where they have expounded on the Passover as a type. I had a bit of a look through Justin's Dialog with Trypho the Jew (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm), and found plenty of references to the Passover (among other things) as a type prefiguring Christ. For example:

For the passover was Christ, who was afterwards sacrificed, as also Isaiah said, `He was led as a sheep to the slaughter.' And it is written, that on the day of the passover you seized Him, and that also during the passover you crucified Him. And as the blood of the passover saved those who were in Egypt, so also the blood of Christ will deliver from death those who have believed.

There are a couple of pre-figuring tidbits in there that I certainly hadn't thought of:

"The mystery, then, of the lamb which God enjoined to be sacrificed as the passover, was a type of Christ; with whose blood, in proportion to their faith in Him, they anoint their houses, i.e., themselves, who believe on Him. ... For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb.

Were you aware of that aspect of the Passover lamb prefiguring Jesus' crucifixion? Ie, that the lamb was actually roasted on a cross-shaped spit? I certainly wasn't! That blows me away!

But back to the topic: It seems to me that Justin was well aware of the significance of the Passover as a type that prefigured Christ's sacrifice. I dare say that Justin knew and understood the Jewish scriptures and Jewish beliefs better than you did. And yet, despite this extensive knowledge of the OT and of Jewish customs, he still believes in and teaches Real Presence in the Eucharist. Furthermore, we may fairly ask the question "where did Justin learn all this stuff?" It seems to me likely that most of it he learned by those Christians who taught him the faith, which means that the understanding of the prefigures in the OT predates him. Indeed, he states this explicitly of the doctrine of Real Presence - which he describes not as a speculation or something that he has invented, but as something that Christians are taught.

Jerome also is aware of the Passover type that prefigured the Eucharist. But like Justin, he still believes in the Real Presence:

After the type had been fulfilled by the Passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the Passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood.

I could probably find other examples, but that should be enough I think. The fact is that the early Christians were well aware of the typological function of the Passover in prefiguring the Eucharist (as well as a good many other things in the OT that prefigure the Eucharist) - yet despite these, they still were adamant and unanimous in supporting Real Presence.

It is incumbent on those who seek to deny the Real Presence to come up with an adequate explanation for this historic reality - why were the early Christians so adamant? Why was the belief so widespread? And how did it develop so early - even as early as Paul himself? And all of this, in the face of a Hellenistic world which denied any sort of communion between the corruptible world and the incorruptible divinity? To try and explain it away with a "because they didn't know the OT prefiguring types" simply doesn't cut it, in light of the above. The most natural explanation for this belief being so widespread, and so adamantly held, and from such early times, is that it is a belief that traces its origin back to the very beginnings of Christianity - to Christ and to His apostles. In which case, it is an authentic teaching of Christ Himself. In which case, who am I to doubt it?

[Jezz]

Ok, Muz, this is getting a little bit out of hand. For example:

A sure sign that you know you've lost.
I don't care about "winning" or "losing" the argument, Muz. I care about the truth. If that means that I must lose the argument, then so be it. I'm not too proud to admit that I'm wrong (at least, I try not to be!) I'm probably at least partly to blame for the hostility, so for that I apologise, and I will make more of an effort not to antagonise you.

I'm going to try and focus on a few key points rather than respond to everything you wrote. I'm going to try and collapse it down by responding out-of-order, by grouping together recurring themes and answering them all at once.

First, the most important one - because I feel that I've addressed it several times, yet you keep throwing it back at me.

That, and the problem of whether Christ's body was broken and His blood already poured out when He said He gave that to them.

and again later:

The apostles hadn't seen Christ's body broken or His blood poured out for them at the last supper.

Your argument seems to be (correct me if I am wrong):

1. Jesus claims that his blood had already been poured out at the Last Supper. (premise from Scripture)
2. But Jesus' blood was not poured out until the following day. (premise)
3. Jesus could not have been referring literally to His blood at the Last Supper. (<= 1 & 2)
4. Real Presence is false. (<= 3)

Is that your argument? If not, please explain what I got wrong. If so... please read on:

Now, I share premise 1, and the reasoning is valid - however, premise 2 is problematic. I will prove this as follows:

Suppose Real Presence is true.

5. The consecrated wine was the blood of Jesus. (Real Presence)
6. The consecrated wine was poured out on the night of the Last Supper. (premised based on Scripture)
7. Therefore, Jesus' blood was poured out on the night of the Last Supper. (<= 5 & 6)

7 contradicts point 2 above. So we can only assume premise 2 to be true if we assume Real Presence is false. In other words, your argument begs the question, and it is not a valid argument. Therefore, you should cease using it.

5 pearls on offer if you admit that this argument begs the question.

Jesus said "remember me".
I dealt with this in an earlier post (the one that you didn't reply to). I will do so again here for your benefit.

Think about the meaning of "re-member". Literally, it means: "to put the members back together". Now put this into a Jewish context with Semitic Totality, where thoughts corresponded to actual reality and had an existence of their own - the "remembrance" was literally the "putting back together" of body and blood (the "members") of Jesus.

A metaphor is a form of symbolic language. Either way, symbolic has the context of representing something else. Thus, the bread represents Christ's body, but isn't literally Christ's body. The wine represents Christ's blood, but isn't literally Christ's blood. They are both symbols.

You can stop trying to play both sides of the fence, now.
It seems I didn't do a very good job of explaining this the first time around. I'm not trying to "play both sides of the fence" - I'm trying to explain what a "symbol" was in the thinking of the first century. This is my understanding, and it might be wrong, but here goes:

The word "symbol", in modern terminology, means something different than it did in the early Christian world. The word comes from Latin "symbolum", which in turn came from Greek "symbolon", which is a compound formed from "syn" (meaning together) and "ballein" (meaning throw). So literally, "symbol" in Greek meant "thrown together". Thus, by the original meaning of this word (ie, as the early Christians would have understood it), Jesus is a symbol of the Word - because He was "thrown together" with the Word when the Word became flesh. But in saying this, it does not mean that Jesus is only metaphorically the Word. It would be incorrect to say that, because Jesus is a symbol of the Word, He is not really or literally the Word.

Now, I grant you that in modern understanding of the word "symbol", you are 100% correct - "symbols" are always "non-literal". However, that is not how the early Christians understood it - strange as it seems to our modern ears, a "symbol" could also be literal (eg, Christ being a symbol of the Word).

Thus, if you want to argue for a non-literal meaning of the Eucharist, then it is not enough to merely assert that it was a symbolic presence. You must assert that it was a metaphorical presence.

Does that make sense?

Anyway, that's really a side-track to the whole real-presence issue - it doesn't really matter if you understand or agree with the above at all. I will, from now on, work with your language rather than try and get you to work with 1st century language.

My argument for John 6 being a metaphor is based upon the larger context of scripture, and physical reality.
...
Except that taking the last supper literally has serious problems reflecting reality.
...
Words that lack a reflection of reality tend to be metaphors, too.
This "physical reality" thing seems to be another of your common arguments. Because a Real Presence understanding of Jesus' doesn't "reflect physical reality" as you understand it, you reject it and claim it was a metaphorical presence only. Well, I think this is a little bit of a silly objection. It is nothing more than an assertion based on your finite understanding of reality. This is what I meant when I said you were mounting an "argument from incredulity".

I do not find this to be a sound hermeneutical principle. If we are to be true Christians, and interpret Scripture at its word, then we should be approaching Scripture in humility and recognising that our understanding of physical reality is limited. We should be letting Scripture tell us what physical reality is, rather than the other way around. Thus, our hermeneutic should not include a modernist view of what "physical reality" is, as that will unduly affect our interpretation. I mean, doesn't it disturb you that the statement "Except that taking the last supper literally has serious problems reflecting reality" is identical in form to the argument that liberals and atheists use in rejecting the resurrection and the other miracles? They are also using the modernist hermeneutic - they're just applying it more consistently than you are. Would it really surprise you to have the Scriptures teach you that "physical reality" is not exactly what you thought it was?

You've completely ignored the Jewish context of the last supper. The eating of the passover was an act of faith, which brought the people of Israel out into the desert to establish a covenant with God, and passover was, more than anything else, as reminder that God delivered them from Egypt, and a reminder of the covenant that followed.
You're right - I am ignoring it. That's because I completely agree with and understand that background (as did the early Christians), and yet (like the early Christians) I fail to see how it refutes the Real Presence. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was prefigured by ritual sacrifices in the Torah. Does this prove that Jesus' sacrifice was metaphorical? Yes or no?

[Solly]

Hey Solly!

Hey. Too much to respond to, although i will allow some of your points on world view, while not accepting your world view.

Of course it seems that way to those who are not of a sacramental world view. But the thing is, the early Christians belonged to a sacramental world view, and the NT was written for such an audience. Therefore, if you want to understand the Bible as it was meant to be understood, you can only do so from the point of view of such a world view. It is those who are outside such a world view who will commit misreadings and misdirections - not those inside.
And that is because, as I pointed out above, your own world view is causing serious misunderstanding - reflecting the naturalist metaphysic rather than Biblical reality.

I would deny this point, as have so many others; the post apostolic church created the sacramental world view, it wasn't there. The change from the RCC view on Real Presence - since no one was bothered with the EO that much - came about before the modern world view was in place. Calvin and others believe in a real presence, but not in the way RCC/EO/Lutherans do:

James Orr [Presbyterian]: There is therefore a most real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the supper on the pure protestant view. This view, to sum all up, knows of a symbolical presence of Christ in the elements, a proclaimed presence in the world, a mystical presence in the ineffable union between Christ and the members of his spiritual body, and a gracious presence in the power and plenitute of the gifts of his spirit.
The Real Presence, p16

The church beneffited from utilising the philosophical terminology of the greek world, but ended up in its metaphysical strait jacket, esp in the west under the RCC - I have less knowledge of the EO of course. That metaphysical strait jacket did not accord with the Hebraic mind found in the OT and taken up into the NT. Sacramentalism drew on the OT institutions, but changed them; there was no sacramentalism of that kind. Holiness meant set apart, not the kind of quality now understood in such churches.

And there's also that annoying little passage written by Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 10:16 - for which I've not seen any "real absence" proponent give an adequate answer (though I have seen some - eg, the ISV translators - try and dodge it rather than accept it). This is where Paul claims that the bread is communion of the body of Christ, and the cup is communion of the blood of Christ. Remembering that the word is "koinwnia" - a word which implies intimate relationship. In other words, a pretty misleading word for Paul to use if he's not trying to teach Real Presence. :teeth: Now, I'm sure that you could explain this in a way that didn't support Real Presence doctrine, but the question is, why should you? Why deny the plain words of Scripture?

:lol: How many groups demand that we hold to the plain words of scripture: nonTrinitarians, dispensationalists, RCC. that's a pretty feeble call Jezz.

Bp WH Griffith Thomas [Anglican]: the word is never used of participation, but of partnership or fellowship. It refers to communion of persons with persons in one and the same thing, several persons all enjoying the same. the phrase 'communion of the blood' and 'fellowship of the Spirit' referring to our partnership with one another in the same blessed reality.
Principles of Theology, p392

And you complain because I quoted ECFs? Why should I believe you when you only quote yourself?

WHGT: The language of the early fathers is free, inexact and rhetorical, as there was no controversy. It is therefore necessary to take their statments with care because of the tendency of oriental symbolism.
Principles of Theology, p394
Macbride: Several of the Fathers have spoken so strongly of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, that it is easy for an ingenious partisan to select passages from their works that shall seem to favour this doctrine...I shall therefore quote Augustine..."When our Lord says, except ye eat...drink..etc., he appears to enjoin a crime. It is therefore a figure, teaching that we participate in the passion of the Lord, and we must sweetly and passionately treasure up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us."
Lectures on the Articles, p478

Bp WHGT: The word 'is' when used as a copula has no meaning apart from its context. it must be either literal or symbolic. This language corresponds exactly with that used at the passover: This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt.
Principles of Theology, p391
Bp Gore [Anglican]: It is, I venture to think, useless to agree with too great exactness about the word 'is'. It describes very various kinds of identification. It is a sufficient warning against laying too much stress on it that in one report our Lord is made to say: This cup is (not, my blood) the new covenant in my blood. The copula is therefore clearly indeterminate.
The Body of Christ, p246

[themuzicman]

I don't care about "winning" or "losing" the argument, Muz. I care about the truth. If that means that I must lose the argument, then so be it. I'm not too proud to admit that I'm wrong (at least, I try not to be!) I'm probably at least partly to blame for the hostility, so for that I apologise, and I will make more of an effort not to antagonise you.

Just don't put words in my mouth, or pigeonhole me.

First, the most important one - because I feel that I've addressed it several times, yet you keep throwing it back at me.



and again later:


Your argument seems to be (correct me if I am wrong):

1. Jesus claims that his blood had already been poured out at the Last Supper. (premise from Scripture)
2. But Jesus' blood was not poured out until the following day. (premise)
3. Jesus could not have been referring literally to His blood at the Last Supper. (<= 1 & 2)
4. Real Presence is false. (<= 3)

Is that your argument? If not, please explain what I got wrong. If so... please read on:

Now, I share premise 1, and the reasoning is valid - however, premise 2 is problematic. I will prove this as follows:

Suppose Real Presence is true.

5. The consecrated wine was the blood of Jesus. (Real Presence)
6. The consecrated wine was poured out on the night of the Last Supper. (premised based on Scripture)
7. Therefore, Jesus' blood was poured out on the night of the Last Supper. (<= 5 & 6)

7 contradicts point 2 above. So we can only assume premise 2 to be true if we assume Real Presence is false. In other words, your argument begs the question, and it is not a valid argument. Therefore, you should cease using it.

5 pearls on offer if you admit that this argument begs the question.


Your argument actually assumes the conclusion (#5): the wine was Jesus blood (real presence), therefore Jesus blood was poured out, therefore, there was real presence. If we don't assume real presence, the former argument works perfectly.

I dealt with this in an earlier post (the one that you didn't reply to). I will do so again here for your benefit.

Think about the meaning of "re-member". Literally, it means: "to put the members back together". Now put this into a Jewish context with Semitic Totality, where thoughts corresponded to actual reality and had an existence of their own - the "remembrance" was literally the "putting back together" of body and blood (the "members") of Jesus.

You gotta be kidding me. We're dealing with greek words, not english ones. The greek word is memnhsqe which is the Perfect Middle Indicative 2nd Plural of mimnhskomai, which means "be mindful of" or "remember." While your etymology of "remember" is interesting, it doesn't translate back into the greek.

(FYI, we get the words "mimic" and "mneumonic" from this word. It has nothing to do with putting things back together.)

So, this argument just doesn't work. The greek word doesn't break down that way.

It seems I didn't do a very good job of explaining this the first time around. I'm not trying to "play both sides of the fence" - I'm trying to explain what a "symbol" was in the thinking of the first century. This is my understanding, and it might be wrong, but here goes:

The word "symbol", in modern terminology, means something different than it did in the early Christian world. The word comes from Latin "symbolum", which in turn came from Greek "symbolon", which is a compound formed from "syn" (meaning together) and "ballein" (meaning throw). So literally, "symbol" in Greek meant "thrown together". Thus, by the original meaning of this word (ie, as the early Christians would have understood it), Jesus is a symbol of the Word - because He was "thrown together" with the Word when the Word became flesh. But in saying this, it does not mean that Jesus is only metaphorically the Word. It would be incorrect to say that, because Jesus is a symbol of the Word, He is not really or literally the Word.

Now, I grant you that in modern understanding of the word "symbol", you are 100% correct - "symbols" are always "non-literal". However, that is not how the early Christians understood it - strange as it seems to our modern ears, a "symbol" could also be literal (eg, Christ being a symbol of the Word).

Thus, if you want to argue for a non-literal meaning of the Eucharist, then it is not enough to merely assert that it was a symbolic presence. You must assert that it was a metaphorical presence.

Does that make sense?

No.

1) We're using the word symbol in the english not in the greek. Regardless of the etymology. Were using "symbol" to describe what is happening. There is no sense in which we're using a translation of symbol from latin or greek.

2) There is no basis for saying that "Word" is symbolic. The meaning of logos is sufficient in and of itself.

3) The etymology of a word frequently does not reflect the meaning of that word. Clearly, symbol is one of those words.

Anyway, that's really a side-track to the whole real-presence issue - it doesn't really matter if you understand or agree with the above at all. I will, from now on, work with your language rather than try and get you to work with 1st century language.

Gee, I guess I should just abandon all that study I've done in Koine greek, huh?

This "physical reality" thing seems to be another of your common arguments. Because a Real Presence understanding of Jesus' doesn't "reflect physical reality" as you understand it, you reject it and claim it was a metaphorical presence only. Well, I think this is a little bit of a silly objection. It is nothing more than an assertion based on your finite understanding of reality. This is what I meant when I said you were mounting an "argument from incredulity".

Ah, the argument to the mysterious. In that case, the EO church was formed out of the ground by God to be the apostate church in the 2nd century, and to tempt the real church to abandon the faith.

Explain the basis for my reasoning? It's a mystery that we can't understand, but just have to accept.

I don't think so.

If you're honestly going to make an end run to mystery, when there is a perfectly valid explanation from scripture that you happen to disagree with, then I gotta wonder how much fideism you really embrace.

Yes, there is a time and place to say "it's mysterious", but only when we reach the point that scripture mandates we accept something as true, and we simply can't explain it. We also only make this appeal in reference to things that are of the nature of the transcendent God.

I do not find this to be a sound hermeneutical principle. If we are to be true Christians, and interpret Scripture at its word, then we should be approaching Scripture in humility and recognising that our understanding of physical reality is limited. We should be letting Scripture tell us what physical reality is, rather than the other way around. Thus, our hermeneutic should not include a modernist view of what "physical reality" is, as that will unduly affect our interpretation.

You mean that you believe all elements are made of earth, wind, fire and water, and that the atom is the smallest particle?

I mean, doesn't it disturb you that the statement "Except that taking the last supper literally has serious problems reflecting reality" is identical in form to the argument that liberals and atheists use in rejecting the resurrection and the other miracles?

Why should it? Should we not read scripture to understand it for what it really says, rather than blindly accepting the traditions of the past as reality? I seem to remember a man named Galileo who was forced to recant his belief about the earth revolving around the sun by the church, because tradition taught otherwise.

(No, I don't reject either the resurrection or other miricles. An inerrant scripture requires that these be literal, although the 1st century description of what happenedin the miricles can certainly be discussed. Did the boy with epilepsy really have a demon, or was it just the disease? We can't say for sure, but neither position violates inerrancy.)

They are also using the modernist hermeneutic - they're just applying it more consistently than you are. Would it really surprise you to have the Scriptures teach you that "physical reality" is not exactly what you thought it was?

1) The scriptures do not teach me that physical reality is not what I thought it was. Again, you are assuming your conclusion in making this statement.

2) The difference, however, is that they (liberals) deny the inerrancy of scripture. A discussion of transubstanciation vs. symbolic communion does not take us beyond the bounds of the inerrancy of scripture, the deity of Christ, and the core of Christianity, so I'm quite distant from the reality of liberalism.


You're right - I am ignoring it. That's because I completely agree with and understand that background (as did the early Christians), and yet (like the early Christians) I fail to see how it refutes the Real Presence. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was prefigured by ritual sacrifices in the Torah. Does this prove that Jesus' sacrifice was metaphorical? Yes or no?

Of course not. Why would it? A symbol still represents some other reality. The the ritual sacrifices symbollically pointed to the literal sacrifice of Christ on the cross without being the literal sacrifice of Christ. In the exact same way the symbols of the bread and the wine point to the literal body and blood of Christ, which were broken and poured out for us.

Maybe the better question is whether you think the literal body and blood of Christ were in the ritual sacrifices performed by the Israelites before His death?

Michael

[Rusty T]

Justin Matyr:
And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Not that it will matter to those who put more trust in modern commentators rather than the Early Church.

Rusty

[Rusty T]

And, because he can say it better than I can, this is from Fr. Hopko's Elementary Handbook on the Orthodox Church. I'm sorry it is kinda long, but it's worth it. Here's the link (http://http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Worship/Holy-Eucharist.html)by the way.

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term "symbols" for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a "mystery" and the sacrifice of the liturgy a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice." These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.



The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life" (Jn 6:34, 41). I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).



Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ's flesh, and Christ's flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word "symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."


Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul: For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26).
The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist -- and Christ himself -- is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist -- because it belongs to God's Kingdom -- is truly free from the earth-born "logic" of fallen humanity.

[elysian]

:yes: :thumb:

Thanks, Tizz.

Oddly enough the Orthodox view is virtually identical to traditional Lutheran teaching, just a bit different terminology.

[themuzicman]

One wonders of the Greek church knows what eucaristew means in greek. (Hint: It means "I give thanks.")

The church has so mysticized this term, that when you hear what it actually means in koine greek, the eucharist suddenly makes perfect sense, and even more sense when you remove real presence.

Michael

[Rusty T]

Yes, I'm sure that the Greek church appreciates you educating them on the Greek.

[Maxentius]

I'm not dividing them. I'm saying that if Jesus' nature is trulyhuman, then he has every attribute that perfect human would possess, which would include a finite, corporeal body. If He were to indwell us in His humanity, He wouldn't possess the essense of humanity, anymore, and, thus, wouldn't be fully human.

Michael

So, if you do not want to divide Christ, please explain to me how Jesus, the one person, can dwell in believers without his human nature.

[themuzicman]

Who said that Christ indwells believers? Christ is at the right hand of God in heaven, in bodily form. It is the Holy Spirit that seal us for adoption, and whose temple we are.

Michael

[Maxentius]

Who said that Christ indwells believers? Christ is at the right hand of God in heaven, in bodily form. It is the Holy Spirit that seal us for adoption, and whose temple we are.

Michael

So you know better than St. John the Aposstle?


24Whoever keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

Yes, it says "by the Spirit", but none the less, Christ lives in us.

Or St. Paul the Apostle


26the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. 27To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. 29For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.

Wow, blatantly stated that Christ lives in you. How can that be if he lives at the right hand of the Father?

Or St. Paul again in Galatians 2:20?

20I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Same thing, blatantly stated.

Now, explain to me how Christ can do this, and do it without dividing the person of Jesus Christ.

Of course, you can just say "metaphor" and make the whole problem go away. :smile: But I don't think that will do here.

Of course, you can also maintain that Jesus' divine nature can be places where his human nature is not, but that flirts with Nestorianism.

[themuzicman]

So you know better than St. John the Aposstle?


24Whoever keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

Yes, it says "by the Spirit", but none the less, Christ lives in us.

You've never heard of the body of Christ? You've never heard the idea that the church is His bridegroom? Or that in a marriage, that the two become one flesh?

If you're going to say that the church, too, is the literal body of Christ, then doesn't the eucharist become cannibalism?

The other item to consider is that expression like this can occur ontologically, (as you are reading it), or ethically, which, in the entire context of 1 John, makes much more sense. IF we keep His commandments, we are morally in Him (His will.)

Or St. Paul the Apostle


26the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. 27To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. 29For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.

Wow, blatantly stated that Christ lives in you. How can that be if he lives at the right hand of the Father?

Lives? I must have missed the word "lives" in there. OR was that your own insertion?

And can we consider the very phrase that follows your reference? ... the hope of glory. Paul defines for us what Christ in us means, specifically that we have the hope of glory. Again, Paul is not making an ontological statement about Christ "living" (your insertion) in us!

Or St. Paul again in Galatians 2:20?

20I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Same thing, blatantly stated.

Now, explain to me how Christ can do this, and do it without dividing the person of Jesus Christ.

Of course, you can just say "metaphor" and make the whole problem go away. :smile: But I don't think that will do here.

Of course, you can also maintain that Jesus' divine nature can be places where his human nature is not, but that flirts with Nestorianism.

Actually, a proper reading of the text in context clears these up very nicely. It's not even really metaphorical, but an understanding that John and Paul are speaking ethically, not ontologically.

Once again, read on from the phrase you cited: And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God. Again, ethical implications. Christ living in us ethically, in that we live by faith in Him, not that He is somehow ontologically living inside of us.

You really should go take a course in heremeneutics, because you're ignoring the three 'C's: Context, Context, Context.

Michael

[Rusty T]

themuzicman,

Before you attack my hermeneutics, I just wanted to ask a question or two. So, you do not believe that Christ somehow (mysteriously, mystically?) is in His people - those who seek after Him by the Grace of God? Perhaps in a way that we cannot logically comprehend?

For the Orthodox (if I can be presumptuous), being "in Christ" and He "in us" is not merely a contractual relationship that occurs after we keep His commandments, etc. It is what happens, literally and mystically for all believers who would deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Him. When we behold Him, face to face - unveiled, we become partakers in the Divine nature of Christ (2 Peter 1:4) - and we are changed into the image of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 3:8).

Abiding in Christ is not merely an intellectual or ethical/moral assent. We must keep His commandments, but we must love Him whom we obey. It is this love, this submission to Christ that brings Christ into our lives in a real way.

Joh 17:20 ¶ "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. (RSV)

[themuzicman]

themuzicman,

Before you attack my hermeneutics, I just wanted to ask a question or two. So, you do not believe that Christ somehow (mysteriously, mystically?) is in His people - those who seek after Him by the Grace of God? Perhaps in a way that we cannot logically comprehend?

For the Orthodox (if I can be presumptuous), being "in Christ" and He "in us" is not merely a contractual relationship that occurs after we keep His commandments, etc. It is what happens, literally and mystically for all believers who would deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Him. When we behold Him, face to face - unveiled, we become partakers in the Divine nature of Christ (2 Peter 1:4) - and we are changed into the image of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 3:8).

Abiding in Christ is not merely an intellectual or ethical/moral assent. We must keep His commandments, but we must love Him whom we obey. It is this love, this submission to Christ that brings Christ into our lives in a real way. I take Paul's mysterious view in the analogy to marriage. The two become one flesh, yet, they are not literally in one another, such that they are literally one flesh. They are one in community, one in family, one in purpose, but not one ontologically. (Yes, there is the sexual image of oneness, but even that isn't an ontological change.)

FYI, keeping His commanments is moral assent. Maybe submission is a better word, but ethically/morally, to be in Christ means to keep His commandments. John makes that very clear. Yes, submission to Christ DOES bring Christ into our lives in a very real way, but in an ethical manner, not an ontological manner.

Michael

[Rusty T]

Yes, submission to Christ DOES bring Christ into our lives in a very real way, but in an ethical manner, not an ontological manner.
I wouldn't say "ethical" I would probably say, "mystical". Perhaps I'm just not understanding the dichotomy you are presenting with "ethical" verses "ontological". By "ontological" do you mean "physical"?

Thanks for any clarification.

Rusty

[themuzicman]

I wouldn't say "ethical" I would probably say, "mystical". Perhaps I'm just not understanding the dichotomy you are presenting with "ethical" verses "ontological". By "ontological" do you mean "physical"?

Thanks for any clarification.

Rusty
Ontological refers to a change in one's state of being. The incarnation was an ontological change, because God the Son took to Himself humanness, such that He has 2 essenses in one person.

If Christ were to literally live in His humanity in people, that would require an ontological change, such that His humanity could somehow be split up among all Christians. That's why real presence is a problem. It isn't in the essense of humanity to have your body constantly split up into small pieces to be consumed by other humans.

Ethical change refers to a change in actions or beliefs. In this case, living in Christ, ethically, means that our lives, both beliefs and works, reflect the change that comes from faith in Christ. Both Paul and John are speaking ethically, not ontologically.

Michael

[Rusty T]

As the Holy Trinity is one is essence, so we too, when we partake in Christ, become one with the Father. It is through the Holy Spirit that we dwell in Christ, and He in us. It is not that Christ's humanity is divided amoung us, rather our humanity is transformed in Him. And while Christ retains His humanity, let's not forget that He is still God. He is one in essence with the Father, and shares in the Divine Attributes - including omnipresence.

Mt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

[Jezz]

Just don't put words in my mouth, or pigeonhole me.
As I said, I don't believe that I was, and I'm sorry if it appeared that way.

Your argument actually assumes the conclusion (#5): the wine was Jesus blood (real presence), therefore Jesus blood was poured out, therefore, there was real presence. If we don't assume real presence, the former argument works perfectly.
Incorrect. 5 was not a conclusion, as I was not trying to prove the Real Presence with that argument. I was rebutting your argument, by showing you that it is logically fallacious.

Let me put it another way: your argument is supposed to prove that Real Presence doctrine is false. However, if Real Presence doctrine is true, then your argument doesn't work. So your argument to prove that the Real Presence doctrine is false only works if the Real Presence doctrine is false. Let me say that again: Your argument only proves Real Presence false if Real Presence is false. In other words, if the conclusion that it sets out to prove is false, then it will prove that conclusion false. In other words, it proves nothing. It is circular. It begs the question. It is a faulty argument, and you should admit that you were wrong, and stop using it.

Does this make sense yet?

You gotta be kidding me. We're dealing with greek words, not english ones.
Granted, I should have gone back to the Greek. Sorry about that. But you were making a big deal out of the English word "remember", which is why I focused on it. You should have gone back to the Greek too. :smile:

The greek word is memnhsqe which is the Perfect Middle Indicative 2nd Plural of mimnhskomai, which means "be mindful of" or "remember."
A minor nit: The word in question ("remembrance") is actually anamnhsiV, which is not either of the two words you quoted (though it is etymologically related). "anamnesis" is only used 4 times in the NT (three of those in the Words of Institution) so it's hard to draw any solid conclusions on the semantic range from that (especially in Jewish usage).

While your etymology of "remember" is interesting, it doesn't translate back into the greek.
Actually, it does (though admittedly not in the same way) - again, because of Semitic Totality. Thoughts had a reality of their own.

(FYI, we get the words "mimic" and "mneumonic" from this word. It has nothing to do with putting things back together.)
Actually, it's "mnemonic", not "mneumonic". Another derivative word is "amnesia".

No.

1) We're using the word symbol in the english not in the greek. Regardless of the etymology. Were using "symbol" to describe what is happening. There is no sense in which we're using a translation of symbol from latin or greek.
But people still do use the word "symbol" in the manner I described it in English. More below.

2) There is no basis for saying that "Word" is symbolic. The meaning of logos is sufficient in and of itself.
For one who likes to complain about me putting words in your mouth, you do your own fair share... However, I'm sure you're not doing it on purpose - it's probably just a misunderstanding, or it's you seeing a logical conclusion to my argument that I haven't considered. Such things tend to happen in written media. Which is why I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it.

Back to the misrepresentation of my words. I didn't say that "Word" (logos) is symbolic. I said that the incarnate Jesus is a "symbol" of the Word (in the early Christian meaning of the word "symbol" - not in the metaphorical sense that you are using it). In the same way that the bread and cup are "symbols"

3) The etymology of a word frequently does not reflect the meaning of that word. Clearly, symbol is one of those words.
The etymology of a word frequently does not reflect current usage of a word. But it often shows the original usage of a word in cases where the meaning has changed. Sometimes the original meaning still persists in some circumstances. This is one of them, as Tizzidale's quote showed (thanks for digging out) - the Orthodox still call communion a symbol, while believing in Real Presence.

Gee, I guess I should just abandon all that study I've done in Koine greek, huh?
No, I'm sure that all your study is worthwhile. I'm just not convinced that you know and understand Greek as well as those Greek-speaking Christians for whom it was a living (in many cases first) language, nor that you ever will. Which is why I will defer to their interpretation.

Ah, the argument to the mysterious. In that case, the EO church was formed out of the ground by God to be the apostate church in the 2nd century, and to tempt the real church to abandon the faith.

Explain the basis for my reasoning? It's a mystery that we can't understand, but just have to accept.

I don't think so.
Ahh, the argument from inanity. Point me to a Scripture where Jesus said "the EO church was formed out of the ground by God to be the apostate church in the 2nd century, and to tempt the real church to abandon the faith", and show me where an early Christian or two interpreted it as meaning literally what it said, and then perhaps we'd be comparing apples to apples instead of apples to tooth fairies.

If you're honestly going to make an end run to mystery, when there is a perfectly valid explanation from scripture that you happen to disagree with, then I gotta wonder how much fideism you really embrace.
Your explanation may or may not be valid. But you may be wrong - that's the thing. What's the point in speculating at all? What is the need for speculation?

Yes, there is a time and place to say "it's mysterious", but only when we reach the point that scripture mandates we accept something as true, and we simply can't explain it. We also only make this appeal in reference to things that are of the nature of the transcendent God.
Why must this appeal be made only when dealing with the transcendent nature of God? If Jesus had thought that it was necessary for us to have it explained, then surely He would have done so? And if supposing He did, what happened to His explanation? Surely the best way to account historically for the widespread belief in Real Presence is the fact that that is how Jesus explained it?

You mean that you believe all elements are made of earth, wind, fire and water, and that the atom is the smallest particle?
If I did, how would it affect my interpretation of the Scripture?

Why should it? Should we not read scripture to understand it for what it really says, rather than blindly accepting the traditions of the past as reality?
Because the Scripture was written for an audience. To understand Scripture, we must understand it as the audience understood it. And the audience of the Greek New Testament was the Greek-speaking Church. Those who knew Greek as well as you know English. This is a basic rule of reading comprehension and historical investigation, that's all. It's a simple matter of being humble enough to admit that they, as native speakers, knew the language better than we do.

I seem to remember a man named Galileo who was forced to recant his belief about the earth revolving around the sun by the church, because tradition taught otherwise.
Again, you compare apples with catfish. With Galileo you're talking about a set of current observations that Galileo had made - fresh observations that Aristotle and his successors did not have access to. If you know of any fresh Scripture passages dealing with the issue of the Eucharist that the ECFs did not have access to, by all means do as Galileo did and bring the forward. The problem is that in this case the situation is actually reversed - if anything, it is the ECFs who had ready access to the genuine tradition more so than we did.

(No, I don't reject either the resurrection or other miricles. An inerrant scripture requires that these be literal, although the 1st century description of what happenedin the miricles can certainly be discussed. Did the boy with epilepsy really have a demon, or was it just the disease? We can't say for sure, but neither position violates inerrancy.)
An inerrant scripture does not require that these be literal at all. An inerrant scripture simply requires that there are no mistakes in it. If the resurrection and the other miracles were only intended by the authors to be metaphor or hyperbole, then how are the Gospels in error? Example: Did Jesus really raise bodily from the dead? Or was the bodily resurrection merely a metaphor for the hope that was raised within the body of Jesus' followers - who were referred to as Christ's body on earth? We can't say for sure, but neither position violates inerrancy...

1) The scriptures do not teach me that physical reality is not what I thought it was. Again, you are assuming your conclusion in making this statement.
This is a begged question in context.

Wind back the clock a little bit. One of the reasons you claimed that the Real Presence is not taught by the Bible is because (and I quote): "...taking the last supper literally has serious problems reflecting reality." Now, you are claiming that the Scriptures do not teach you that physical reality is not what you thought it was. Is this really a surprise - given that you are using "comports with your view of reality" as a hermeneutical guideline? Of course the Scriptures are not teaching you that physical reality is not what you thought it was - you are deliberately interpreting them in line with your existing understanding of physical reality.

2) The difference, however, is that they (liberals) deny the inerrancy of scripture. A discussion of transubstanciation vs. symbolic communion does not take us beyond the bounds of the inerrancy of scripture, the deity of Christ, and the core of Christianity, so I'm quite distant from the reality of liberalism.
I know that you're quite distant from the reality of liberalism. But the methodology bares marked similarities, because at the root of it it is the same: you both believe that you can interpret the correct meaning of the Greek New Testament better than the Greeks could.

Muz: You've completely ignored the Jewish context of the last supper. The eating of the passover was an act of faith, which brought the people of Israel out into the desert to establish a covenant with God, and passover was, more than anything else, as reminder that God delivered them from Egypt, and a reminder of the covenant that followed.

In the same way, Jesus was about to establish a new covenant, and the eating wasn't as important in the ceremony as the breaking of the bread and the pouring of wine, both clear symbols from the passover.

Jezz: You're right - I am ignoring it. That's because I completely agree with and understand that background (as did the early Christians), and yet (like the early Christians) I fail to see how it refutes the Real Presence. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was prefigured by ritual sacrifices in the Torah. Does this prove that Jesus' sacrifice was metaphorical? Yes or no?

Of course not. Why would it?
I don't know. Why would it? You're the one that's using this argument as a rebuttal of Real Presence!

The above argument that you used (which I requoted for context) is:

1. The Passover prefigured the Eucharist.
2. Therefore, the Eucharist was metaphorical.

This is the same as my argument:
1. The sacrifices of the Torah prefigured Jesus' sacrifice.
2. Therefore, Jesus' sacrifice was metaphorical.

A symbol still represents some other reality. The the ritual sacrifices symbollically pointed to the literal sacrifice of Christ on the cross without being the literal sacrifice of Christ.
And likewise, the ritual Passover could symbolically point the literal Eucharist. Hence, the Jewish background of the Passover for the Eucharist makes no difference to the question of Real Presence. The Eucharist could still be a Real Presence even if there was prefiguring in the Jewish tradition. The early Christians understood this.

Maybe the better question is whether you think the literal body and blood of Christ were in the ritual sacrifices performed by the Israelites before His death?
Interesting question. Maybe they were. But I'm not going to make any dogmatic statements about it one way or the other.

[Maxentius]

You've never heard of the body of Christ? You've never heard the idea that the church is His bridegroom? Or that in a marriage, that the two become one flesh?

How about telling me your interpretation of this verse, which blatantly contradicts your assertion.

Do you believe that the church dwells in us? Please! You might have had a point if St. John only said "they (beleivers) abide in him (Jesus).." But he also said Jesus abides in the believer. This is fatal to your assertion.

If you want to play herneneutical games and say this means the church, how does the church abide in each believer? You see, it makes a hash of the passage, all so you can maintain your opinion that Jesus does not live in the believer.

If you're going to say that the church, too, is the literal body of Christ, then doesn't the eucharist become cannibalism?

Sorry Muz. Please explain to me why St. Paul means the church here. The "mystery" is what he described in verse 21, it is the gospel. Do you want to say that the gospel, and not Jesus Christ, abides in the believer now?

And no, the Eucharist does not become cannibalism.

The other item to consider is that expression like this can occur ontologically, (as you are reading it), or ethically, which, in the entire context of 1 John, makes much more sense. IF we keep His commandments, we are morally in Him (His will.)

In other words, it is a symbol because you can't wrap your mind around it.

Lives? I must have missed the word "lives" in there. OR was that your own insertion?

Oh come on! Are you down to such word games? If Christ is in us, surely he lives because he IS life! and he gives us new life. What kind of existence can Christ have in someone if it is not a living one? A dead one?

And can we consider the very phrase that follows your reference? ... the hope of glory. Paul defines for us what Christ in us means, specifically that we have the hope of glory. Again, Paul is not making an ontological statement about Christ "living" (your insertion) in us!

Yeah, Christ, the hope of glory, lives in us--unless we want to ignore the clear statement of Scripture. Let's try another sentence: George W. Bush, the leader of the Free World, abides in my house. Paul is merely giving another discriptuin of Christ here. If you are correct, that St. Paul meant the hope and glory and not Christ, why would St. Paul even say that Christ is in us if he only meant that we have the hope of glory? Obviously, in context, he meant Christ is in us. Sorry, but I think you are reading your interpretation into the text. Paul clearly states thaty Christ is in us. Also, for Paul there is an identity between the hope of Glory and Jesus Christ. You are simply wrong here.

Actually, a proper reading of the text in context clears these up very nicely. It's not even really metaphorical, but an understanding that John and Paul are speaking ethically, not ontologically.

So says you. Care to produce any evidence, or should I just accept you at your word?

Once again, read on from the phrase you cited: And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God. Again, ethical implications. Christ living in us ethically, in that we live by faith in Him, not that He is somehow ontologically living inside of us.

No contradiction here. Ethical "implications" do not cause a change in the clear meaning of the passage. St. Paul lives by faith in the Christ who lives in him. When Christ dwells in the believer of course we will see a change in his life.

But you, in order to maintain your doctrine that Christ does not live in the believer, have to bring in other subjective hermeneutics, like "he really meant an ethical dwelling".

You really should go take a course in heremeneutics, because you're ignoring the three 'C's: Context, Context, Context.

On the contrary, I have shown why your interpretations are not valid at all. For you, when an apostle says "Jesus lives/abides etc in us" he does not really mean that.

You could avoid all your hermeneutical gymnastics if you just admit that you believe that Jesus' divine nature can be somewhere his human nature is not. It does make you flirt with Nestorianism, but does not necessarily mean you are Nestorian.

If I may speculate a little, you got cought up in the "argument" and ended up denying a simple Scriptural truth.

If Christ's human nature can live in an individual believer, a major objection of yours, that Jesus' body cannot be in the bread and his blood not be in the wine because they are constrained by space, falls flat. Unless[/b] you believe that only his divine nature dwells in believers. In fact, that is the traditional Reformed view. To my knowledge, the Reformed do not go as far as you do and deny that Jesus dwells in the believer, they would say that it is his divine nature [i]alone which can do this since, as you have stated, Jesus' human body is constrained in space.

I will still say that you divide the person because Jesus' divine nature does not share an action with his human nature.

[themuzicman]

How about telling me your interpretation of this verse, which blatantly contradicts your assertion.
Are you saying that husband and wife are ontologically one? :lmbo:

I don't know about you, but I remain ontologically separate from my wife, even as we are one in marraige.

Do you believe that the church dwells in us? Please! You might have had a point if St. John only said "they (beleivers) abide in him (Jesus).." But he also said Jesus abides in the believer. This is fatal to your assertion.
The church doesn't dwell in us. We are the church. Each Christian is a part of the church. That doesn't make us ontologically one, however.

And my assertion is in no way fatal, when John is taken in the context of the entire book of 1 John, which is ethical in nature, not ontological. Too bad you can't seem to grasp the difference.

If you want to play herneneutical games and say this means the church, how does the church abide in each believer? You see, it makes a hash of the passage, all so you can maintain your opinion that Jesus does not live in the believer.
Never said that.

Sorry Muz. Please explain to me why St. Paul means the church here. The "mystery" is what he described in verse 21, it is the gospel. Do you want to say that the gospel, and not Jesus Christ, abides in the believer now?
Maybe you should go read Ephesians 5:

Ephesians 5:25]
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her

The mystery of Ephesians 5 is the relationship between Christ and the church.

[/size]And no, the Eucharist does not become cannibalism.



In other words, it is a symbol because you can't wrap your mind around it.
It's a symbol, because there are serious problems in taking it literally.

Oh come on! Are you down to such word games? If Christ is in us, surely he lives because he IS life! and he gives us new life. What kind of existence can Christ have in someone if it is not a living one? A dead one?

Ethical, not ontological.

Yeah, Christ, the hope of glory, lives in us--unless we want to ignore the clear statement of Scripture. Let's try another sentence: George W. Bush, the leader of the Free World, abides in my house.
Let's try another: George W. Bush abides in every house in America at the same time. That would be a better analogy.

Paul is merely giving another discriptuin of Christ here. If you are correct, that St. Paul meant the hope and glory and not Christ, why would St. Paul even say that Christ is in us if he only meant that we have the hope of glory?
Gee, because our hope and glory is found in Christ?

Obviously, in context, he meant Christ is in us. Sorry, but I think you are reading your interpretation into the text. Paul clearly states thaty Christ is in us. Also, for Paul there is an identity between the hope of Glory and Jesus Christ. You are simply wrong here.
At least you stopped inserting words into scripture. Now, you have to go the rest of the way and understand the meaning of the text.

So says you. Care to produce any evidence, or should I just accept you at your word?
An ontological reading produces multiple problems, as I have detailed.

No contradiction here. Ethical "implications" do not cause a change in the clear meaning of the passage. St. Paul lives by faith in the Christ who lives in him. When Christ dwells in the believer of course we will see a change in his life.
But there is no necessity for an ontological indwelling.

But you, in order to maintain your doctrine that Christ does not live in the believer, have to bring in other subjective hermeneutics, like "he really meant an ethical dwelling".
Like a reading of scripture that is consistent with the remainder of scripture.

On the contrary, I have shown why your interpretations are not valid at all. For you, when an apostle says "Jesus lives/abides etc in us" he does not really mean that.
Actually, I said that those passages are ethical, not ontological.

You could avoid all your hermeneutical gymnastics if you just admit that you believe that Jesus' divine nature can be somewhere his human nature is not. It does make you flirt with Nestorianism, but does not necessarily mean you are Nestorian.
You're just itching to call me a heretic, aren't you?

If I may speculate a little, you got cought up in the "argument" and ended up denying a simple Scriptural truth.
Actually, I got caught up reading scripture, and exposed a problem in your theology.

If Christ's human nature can live in an individual believer, a major objection of yours, that Jesus' body cannot be in the bread and his blood not be in the wine because they are constrained by space, falls flat.
Didn't say that. I said that the essense of a human being isn't to have his flesh torn off and put into every communion cup in the world. If this is the case, then Christ isn't really human.

You've changed your story, now, since you started with CHrist's humanity dwelling in us, and now we have His divinity. Not sure how the spirit world takes up residence in the phyisical one.

Unless[/b] you believe that only his divine nature dwells in believers. In fact, that is the traditional Reformed view. To my knowledge, the Reformed do not go as far as you do and deny that Jesus dwells in the believer, they would say that it is his divine nature [i]alone which can do this since, as you have stated, Jesus' human body is constrained in space.

I don't deny it either, per se. I say that the abiding is in an ethical, not an ontological sense, and I believe the reformed church would agree with me on that point.

I will still say that you divide the person because Jesus' divine nature does not share an action with his human nature.
What action isn't shared?

Michael

[Maxentius]

Are you saying that husband and wife are ontologically one? :lmbo:

No, a husband is not God, a wife is not God. Jesus is God. He has other ways of being than we do. Also, not all unions are the same.

Your analogy is irrelavent.

For further proof your analogy is irrelavent, no one states that the man dwells in his wife, or that she dwells in her husband. However, the Apostles do claim that Jesus dwells in his believers.

Neither does 1 John deal with marriage. For someone who said I should look at "context...." you sure have a way of ripping passages out of their context when it suits you.

So, let's try this again.

You state that Jesus does not dwell in his believers. In 1 John 3:24, St. John says that those who obey Jesus' commandment abide in Jesus, and that Jesus abides in them. What does "abide" mean? It means "to continue in a place" in Marion-Webster's. It means the same in Greek.

But you believe it is an "ethical" dwelling. Well, ethics don't dwell in people but Christ does.

I don't know about you, but I remain ontologically separate from my wife, even as we are one in marraige.

HAHAHAHA. Very clever. Except that your analogy is irrelavent. (see above)

And my assertion is in no way fatal, when John is taken in the context of the entire book of 1 John, which is ethical in nature, not ontological. Too bad you can't seem to grasp the difference.

So, if an epistle is "ethical in nature", what ever that means, it becomes impossible for the word abide to to have the meaning it actually has? Please. :hehe: Sorry, but "abide" has a meaning, and hermeneutical gymnastics don't change it. It means dwell in, and the fact that 1 John is discussing ethics does not mean that the abiding is symbolic/metaphorical. There is no reason to assume that.


If you want to play herneneutical games and say this means the church, how does the church abide in each believer? You see, it makes a hash of the passage, all so you can maintain your opinion that Jesus does not live in the believer.



Never said that.

Since you did not bother to supply your reasons for your assertion I took my best guess. Not my fault if you don't explain yourself. :smile:


Maybe you should go read Ephesians 5:

[size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1][size=-1]Ephesians 5:25]
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her

The mystery of Ephesians 5 is the relationship between Christ and the church.


It's a symbol, because there are serious problems in taking it literally.


Ethical, not ontological.

Please see above where I show that no one claims that husbands and wives dwell in each other.


Let's try another: George W. Bush abides in every house in America at the same time. That would be a better analogy.

So Jesus does not fill the universe? He does not have omnipresence? If my analogy is false, or if yours is better, that is basically what you are saying--Jesus Christ does not have the divine quality of omnipresence--or at best part of him does and there in lies flirting with Nestorianism. Your "correction" of my analogy doesn't work because I was trying to show what St. Paul was saying gramatically. You stated that the "indwelling" of Christ was the "hope of glory." Gramatically that is simply false.

If you say that Jesus Christ does have omnipresence, why the objection that he especially lives in his believers?

A little context:


Paul is merely giving another discriptuin [sic] of Christ here. If you are correct, that St. Paul meant the hope and glory and not Christ, why would St. Paul even say that Christ is in us if he only meant that we have the hope of glory?

Gee, because our hope and glory is found in Christ?

Lets look at the passage again, since you seem to be confused:


26the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. 27To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. 29For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.

Why not just write "To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is the hope of glory"?

You see, the passage only makes sense if Christ is dwelling in us. There is no reason for St. Paul to say Christ is in us if he only really meant the hope of glory that is in is.

Go ahead, tell us why St. Paul would insert a phrase that clearly sais that Christ is in us when it is really only our own hope of glory. And remember context. :smile:

At least you stopped inserting words into scripture. Now, you have to go the rest of the way and understand the meaning of the text.

A trite reply that does not bother to interact with what I stated.

The worde is abide--or "Christ in us". I don't have to change any words, they are right there in front of us.


An ontological reading produces multiple problems, as I have detailed.

And an "ethical" interpretation does violence to the text. Please see my comment just above.

But there is no necessity for an ontological indwelling.

There does not have to be a necessity. You asserted a contradiction, there isn't one. That makes your assertion false.

You're just itching to call me a heretic, aren't you?

Actually, I was at pains to say otherwise. Did you even bother to read, or do you just want to write another trite response? Care to show where I am "itching" to call you a heretic, or is this an ad-hominem? What is that in your sig? "Ad hominem attack and name calling are the most begrudging (and satisfying) admission of defeat."

I think calling my motives into question despite what I wrote qualifies as ad-hominem.

Actually, I got caught up reading scripture, and exposed a problem in your theology.

Except that Scripture disagrees with your novel "ethical" interpretation. Abide, dwell in. Those are the words and no mountain of philosophical speculatuion will change them.

Didn't say that. I said that the essense of a human being isn't to have his flesh torn off and put into every communion cup in the world. If this is the case, then Christ isn't really human.

Which is basically what I stated you said. If Jesus has a human body it is constrained by space, it cannot be everywhere, not can it be divided and Jesus still live.

You've changed your story

Prove it, or take it back.

What action isn't shared?

Because there is only one person, Jesus Christ, who has two natures, what the person does both natures do. Thus, if we look into Jesus' eyes we look into the eyes of God. If Jesus bleeds God bleeds. If God heals a paralytic Jesus heals a paralytic. If we say one nature does something the person does not we flirt with Nestorianism.

[Jude3b]

Lutherans have taught the doctrine of the Real Presence in Holy Communion (consubstantiation) since the Reformation. I have long agreed with this stance: Jesus' Body and Blood are present simply because He said so and that when we partake of His Supper we partake of His Body and His Blood.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. Mark 14:22-24 (NIV)

Jesus doesn't tell us how, just simply that it is.

In a battle between reason and Scripture, Scripture (especially the words of Jesus) has the upper hand. We believe it because Jesus said it is so.
The "how" is a mystery, a mystery that is entrusted to God Who can do ALL things.

This is a great article in defense of the Real Presence (http://www.discernment.org/responding_to_the_real_presence.htm) from a non-Lutheran perspective.

Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body.

God does not endorse cannibalism.

[Rusty T]

Following up on what Max. has been talking about with themuzicman (and something I asked earlier as well): Does Jesus have all the attributes of God? When Jesus said (as I quoted in an above post) that He would be in our midst wherever two or three are gathered - how do you interpret that - ethically? When Jesus prayed in John 17 that those who believe in Him would be in Him and the Father and then he goes on to say and we in them, what did He mean?

I remember when I was a child I met Jesus. I didn't have a hermeneutic, but if I was asked where Jesus was I would have replied, "In my heart."

Mt 18:2-3 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

[themuzicman]

No, a husband is not God, a wife is not God. Jesus is God. He has other ways of being than we do. Also, not all unions are the same.

Your analogy is irrelavent.

For further proof your analogy is irrelavent, no one states that the man dwells in his wife, or that she dwells in her husband. However, the Apostles do claim that Jesus dwells in his believers. That's not my analogy. That's Paul's analogy, from Ephesians 5.

So, if you're going to call scripture irrelevant, I think you have a bigger problem than real presence.

To use my own analogy, people say, "Look, you can see his father in him" which would be akin to saying "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree."

In the same way, people should be able to see Christ in us, not in a physical indwelling sense, (Look! You can see Christ in the wrinkles on his forehead!), but in our live, our faith, and our actions. That's what it means to have Christ dwelling in us in a moral sense.

Michael

[Rusty T]

I think the problem some people have (and it was pointed out very well by Fr. Hopko in the article I linked to and quoted in an above post) is that they fail to recognize the realness of the mystical. Because it is not physical, does not negate reality. This (and I don't pretend to label anyone in particular) scholasticism that is essential to and invigorates many "theologies" is what turned me off to Protestatism in the first place.

Wouldn't it be easier to say that Christ dwells in us because we are the temple of the Spirit of God - and you cannot separate the essence of God? That when the Spirit indwells a man - Christ is there as well? Instead, we have arguments about the reality of Christ in His people because you cannot have Christ physically present in multiple places. And then we turn the question - not on the presence of Christ in His people - but on the nature of Christ, when all of this could be avoided.

In the same way, one can see in the argument over the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist the over-analysis of how and why and what for, when in all honesty all we Christians can do when we look at the incarnation and what it means is say, "Thy ways are above my way. Thy thoughts far above my thoughts." Instead of focusing on Paul's warning that we do not partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we instead spend days arguing over its worth and purpose.

Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner

Rusty

[themuzicman]

Well, if we read scripture, we find that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and actually the Holy Spirit is also our seal and guarentee.

So, I would be more willing to say that, from a scriptural standpoint, the Holy Spirit is the one who acts to us and through us from God the Father, and from Jesus Christ.

Yes, they are one in essense, but they are still three persons, each performing different functions, as well.

Michael

[Rusty T]

themuzicman,

Is Christ omnipresent?

rusty

[themuzicman]

Of course. That is part of His deity. That doesn't, however, mean that He has to take up residence in any one person. If you want to get technical, He couldn't, since He is omnipresent. He can't squeeze into any one person.

Michael

[Rusty T]

I'm not presumptuous enough to think I know what God's limits are.

Rusty

[themuzicman]

So, you don't believe in Omnipresence?

[Rusty T]

Of course I do, but neither do I question whether or not what God calls Holy is holy or not.

Wouldn't this whole issue be solved by you just going back to your original argument that the Eucharist is just a symbol? Instead those who would argue against the Real Presence in the Eucharist seem to be arguing against the unknowable. When Mary questioned Gabriel and said, "How shall this be . . ." She did not receive an exposition of the incarnation, but rather he said, "The Holy Spirit shall overshadow thee. . ." If I may quote from an Orthodox Father, John Damascene:




If then the Word of God is quick and energising, and the Lord did all that He willed; if He said, Let there be light and there was light, let there be a firmament and there was a firmament; if the heavens were established by the Word of the Lord and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth; if the heaven and the earth, water and fire and air and the whole glory of these, and, in sooth, this most noble creature, man, were perfected by the Word of the Lord; if God the Word of His own will became man and the pure and undefiled blood of the holy and ever-virginal One made His flesh without the aid of seed, can He not then make the bread His body and the wine and water His blood? He said in the beginning, Let the earth bring forth grass, and even until this present day, when the rain comes it brings forth its proper fruits, urged on and strengthened by the divine command. God said, This is My body, and This is My blood, and this do ye in remembrance of Me. And so it is at His omnipotent command until He come: for it was in this sense that He said until He come: and the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit becomes through the invocation the rain to this new tillage. For just as God made all that He made by the energy of the Holy Spirit, so also now the energy of the Spirit performs those things that are supernatural and which it is not possible to comprehend unless by faith alone.

thanks,

Rusty

[Rusty T]

Of course. That is part of His deity. That doesn't, however, mean that He has to take up residence in any one person. If you want to get technical, He couldn't, since He is omnipresent. He can't squeeze into any one person.
Michael,

How do you explain the incarnation then?

thanks,

Rusty

[themuzicman]

But there is a difference between a supernatural act, a paradox, a contradiction, and a logical impossibility.

The virgin birth is a supernatural act. Given that God acts, the virgin birth isn't a problem. God created Adam, He can certainly create another human body for God the Son to take to Himself, even in conception.

The trinity is a paradox. Three persons, one essence. We can't really conceptualize it, but it isn't exactly a contradiction , either, so we chalk it up to mystery.

Real presence is a contradiction. The bread was Christ's body, which is broken, but wasn't broken. The blood was poured out, but it wasn't yet poured out. It's His literal body, but it isn't in the essense of humanness for pieces of that body to be going everywhere on the earth to be eaten. We can claim mystery, but it becomes difficult to justify, especially in light of clearer alternatives.

Then Christ's divinity living in us, which is a logical contradiction. In His divinity, Christ is omnipresent, so to say that He literally and ontologically comes to live in some finite, limited area is a logical contradiction. Since most theologians assume that God is ultimately logical (albiet from a much better perspective than we have), these have to be resolved, or at least admitted that we don't have enough data to make a logical conclusion, and then avoid making doctrine based upon it.

It's not as though everything needs to be explained to the nth degree, but we do need to understand the various difficulties that come up, and whether we're willing to live with them.

How do you explain the incarnation then? God the Son took to Himself (added ontologically) human essense, which is finite. Two essenses (divine and human) in one person. This falls into the paradox mystery. Possible to conceptualize, at some level, but really not explainable.

Michael

[Rusty T]

Then Christ's divinity living in us, which is a logical contradiction. In His divinity, Christ is omnipresent, so to say that He literally and ontologically comes to live in some finite, limited area is a logical contradiction. Since most theologians assume that God is ultimately logical (albiet from a much better perspective than we have), these have to be resolved, or at least admitted that we don't have enough data to make a logical conclusion, and then avoid making doctrine based upon it.(emphasis added by tizzidale)Isn't this the incarnation - yet you label it a 'logical contradiction'? Doctrine is not made by inference, deduction, or speculation. Doctrine is that which was once and for all delivered unto God's people through the act of the Holy Spirit in revelation, through Christ in His teachings and life, and through God in His Church.

It's not as though everything needs to be explained to the nth degree, but we do need to understand the various difficulties that come up, and whether we're willing to live with them.I'm quiet willing to live with the difficulties that may come up concerning the gospel. In fact I am quiet willing to die for them.
1Co 1:20-21 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (RSV)

[Rusty T]

Real presence is a contradiction. The bread was Christ's body, which is broken, but wasn't broken. The blood was poured out, but it wasn't yet poured out. It's His literal body, but it isn't in the essense of humanness for pieces of that body to be going everywhere on the earth to be eaten. We can claim mystery, but it becomes difficult to justify, especially in light of clearer alternatives.
Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Just a verse that came to mind.

[Maxentius]

That's not my analogy. That's Paul's analogy, from Ephesians 5.

Nonsense. Show where St. Paul says that a husband and wife are in each other (no snickering!) :hehe:. Without that, your analogy fails--period.

So, if you're going to call scripture irrelevant, I think you have a bigger problem than real presence.

I called your analogy irrelavent, and I stand by it. In fact, this is the second time I explained to you why it is irrelavent. Care to show why I am wrong, or is your assertion enough?

In the same way, people should be able to see Christ in us, not in a physical indwelling sense, (Look! You can see Christ in the wrinkles on his forehead!), but in our live, our faith, and our actions. That's what it means to have Christ dwelling in us in a moral sense.

There is not a contradiction between people seeing Christ in our actions, and Christ actually dwelling in the believer. We can have both and not play around with the actual words of Scripture.

As I pointed out in other replies to you, your interpretation does not even make sense within the passages in question. Neither does take care of the fact that the word abide is also used.

If there was only one place where the bible said that Jesus is in the believer then you might have a point. But there are several, and the way the passages are written is pretty clear: Jesus lives/abides/is in the believer. How? That is a mystery he chose not to reveal.

I also think Tizzdale's question deserves an answer too. It goes to the unity of the person of Jesus Christ. If what you say is true, a part of Christ does not share in the divine attribute of omnipresence at least. Can you see where such a doctrine may lead to a division of the person of Jesus Christ?

[Maxentius]

Isn't this the incarnation - yet you label it a 'logical contradiction'?

The people on this thread might find this interesting:

"He whom the world could not inclose
Doth in Mary's lap repose,
He is become an infant small,
Who by His might upholdeth all.
Hallelujah!"

A paradox, no? That is the Incarnation and the doctrine of the single person of Jesus Chrst in a nutshell. What the person Jesus Christ does both natures share.

Here is a link to the whole hymn: http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/hymns/name.elhb

I think this is on topic because as tizzdale points out, if themuzicman follows his hermeneutics consistently he has to deny that the Son of God was incarnated, i.e. located in space and time--finite and limited. He died after all!

[themuzicman]

Isn't this the incarnation - yet you label it a 'logical contradiction'? Doctrine is not made by inference, deduction, or speculation. Doctrine is that which was once and for all delivered unto God's people through the act of the Holy Spirit in revelation, through Christ in His teachings and life, and through God in His Church.
If you read on, I deal with the incarnation.

I'm quiet willing to live with the difficulties that may come up concerning the gospel. In fact I am quiet willing to die for them.
You mean difficulties in your interpretation?

Michael

[themuzicman]

I think this is on topic because as tizzdale points out, if themuzicman follows his hermeneutics consistently he has to deny that the Son of God was incarnated, i.e. located in space and time--finite and limited. He died after all!
How nice of you to completely ignore what I wrote!

Michael

[Rusty T]

I'm quiet willing to live with the difficulties that may come up concerning the gospel. In fact I am quiet willing to die for them.
You mean difficulties in your interpretation?
I haven't put words in your mouth during this conversation, Michael. I'd appreciate the same courtesy. And, if I may, I am not willing to die for my interpretation. That would be the height of ignorance. I'm willing to die for the Gospel which is delivered to the world through the Holy Spirit in Christ's Church.

If anything I would not say that the ideals I have expressed here are an invention of my interpretation. I am not a robot, but I have given assent to the Holy Orthodox Church and her Saints. If I would find out today that I have argued wrongly, I wouldn't want to search out a church that agreed with me, but rather I would conform myself to the Church - "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."(1 Tim. 3:15)

Rusty

[themuzicman]

This is usually the longhand way of saying that you want out of the conversation, which is fine.

Michael

[Rusty T]

themuzicman,

Instead of trying to divine your thoughts and intents, I want to continue this conversation - as soon as you begin to address the issues again instead of practicing mind reading.

To start the thread back on its merry way, I'll ask a question that I asked earlier that you merely side-stepped: How is your statement that Jesus' divinity couldn't can't be contained in one person limited in space and time - that this would be a contradiction - how is this so considering that this is exactly what the incarnation is.

In other words, if this is a contradiction - yet true, and something that you believe - why do you have to have a logical explanation of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist before you simply take Christ at His word?

Rusty

[themuzicman]

themuzicman,

Instead of trying to divine your thoughts and intents, I want to continue this conversation - as soon as you begin to address the issues again instead of practicing mind reading. It would help if you would stop wrapping yourself in tradition and insisting that you must be right.

To start the thread back on its merry way, I'll ask a question that I asked earlier that you merely side-stepped: How is your statement that Jesus' divinity couldn't can't be contained in one person limited in space and time - that this would be a contradiction - how is this so considering that this is exactly what the incarnation is. What basis do you have for saying that His divinity was contained in the physical space of the body of Christ?

In fact, this is a tacit denial of the divinity of Christ, because part of the essense of being God is omnipresence. If Jesus was not omnipresent in His divinity then He wasn't God.

In other words, if this is a contradiction - yet true, and something that you believe - why do you have to have a logical explanation of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist before you simply take Christ at His word?

Rusty You've assumed your condition, when it has not been shown.

Michael

[spl_cadet]

How exactly do you accept the Scriptures as the Word of God without appealing to tradition?

[themuzicman]

How exactly do you accept the Scriptures as the Word of God without appealing to tradition?
As a Christian, it would be hard to assume otherwise.

But it is accepted by the church at large, so it's not really an issue.

Michael

[spl_cadet]

So's transubstantiation, accepted by Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm) and unanimously accepted by the Early Church. So it isn't an issue either.

[themuzicman]

It is, now.

[spl_cadet]

It is, now.

Which would only prove that those who have made it an issue are the heretics and wrong.

[Jezz]

Real presence is a contradiction. The bread was Christ's body, which is broken, but wasn't broken. The blood was poured out, but it wasn't yet poured out. It's His literal body, but it isn't in the essense of humanness for pieces of that body to be going everywhere on the earth to be eaten. We can claim mystery, but it becomes difficult to justify, especially in light of clearer alternatives.
Michael, I have refuted these alleged contradictions several times in this thread. You haven't responded to any of the refutations of either point, except for one weak attempt at one countering one of my counters against one point. Never mind, I'm patient - even if it means I have to go right back to first principles, I'm going to explain to you why these arguments are logically fallacious.

Ok, now first of all, some methodological stuff. Your claim: Real Presence is a contradiction. In order to prove a contradiction in the doctrine, you have to do the following:

1. Start by using the conclusions/assertions of the Real Presence doctrine as premises.
2. Derive a logical contradiction using these premises.

The key point there is 1 - you cannot prove a logical contradiction in a doctrine unless you use that doctrine's premises. If you deny one of the premises when deriving your contradiction, then you haven't succeeded in disproving the premises.

So now that we've got that methodological issue out of the way, let me explain why your arguments do not prove that Real Presence is contradictory.

The first argument: The body had not been broken, Jesus spoke as though it had been broken already, therefore, Jesus must have been speaking figuratively. The argument for the blood being already poured out is completely analogous.
Refutation: This argument does not prove that Real Presence is contradictory because, as I showed in my last two posts to you, it must deny the premise of Real Presence in order to support its opening premise. If, as Real Presence asserts, the bread was the body of Christ - well, you admit that the bread was broken at the time Jesus spoke, therefore, the body was broken. Therefore, this argument fails to prove that there is a contradiction between Real Presence and Jesus' words. The methodology you used to prove the contradiction was flawed, therefore, the conclusion is not supported by the argument.

The second argument: If Jesus could have parts of His body/blood outside of His human body, then He is not truly human.
Refutation: I will disprove this argument, as I did last time, by a redutio ad absurdum. Consider this thought experiment: Suppose Fred is truly human, and through an unfortunate accident cuts off his finger. Suppose by a miracle of God regrows his finger instantly. His original finger is still detached from his body and in a separate location. Assuming your premise (ie, that a person cannot have bits of their body separate from their body and still be truly human), then it follows that Fred is no longer truly human. This is clearly an absurd conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion must be false - which means that your premise must be false. It would not compromise Jesus' "true humanity" to have pieces of His body separate from His physical body.

You need to deal with these rebuttals, because they completely refute your assertion that Real Presence is a contradiction. As it stands, Real Presence belongs in the "paradox" class of doctrine, not the "contradiction" class.

[Jezz]

spl_cadet: How exactly do you accept the Scriptures as the Word of God without appealing to tradition?

Muz: As a Christian, it would be hard to assume otherwise. But it is accepted by the church at large, so it's not really an issue.

spl_cadet:So's transubstantiation, accepted by Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and unanimously accepted by the Early Church. So it isn't an issue either.

Muz: It is, now.
Up until about 200 years ago, the fact of the inspiration of the Scriptures was never really questioned. It was unanimously accepted by the Church. Now there are those heretical Christians that deny it. It is easy to imagine them using exactly the same argument to justify their rejection of the doctrine of Scriptural inspiration. "It may not have been an issue for the first 1800 years of Church history, but 'It is, now.'"

What is your response to such liberals? What methodology can you use to refute them that would not simultaneously undermine your own position?

[themuzicman]

Which would only prove that those who have made it an issue are the heretics and wrong.
:lmbo: Yeah, like the RCC has NEVER been wrong... :lmbo:

Sorry, but church tradition is FAR from inerrant. I may be in disagreement with the RCC, and, as such, a heretic to you, but so was Luther, Calvin, and all of protestantism, so I'm in pretty good company.

Michael

[themuzicman]

Up until about 200 years ago, the fact of the inspiration of the Scriptures was never really questioned. It was unanimously accepted by the Church. Now there are those heretical Christians that deny it. It is easy to imagine them using exactly the same argument to justify their rejection of the doctrine of Scriptural inspiration. "It may not have been an issue for the first 1800 years of Church history, but 'It is, now.'"

What is your response to such liberals? What methodology can you use to refute them that would not simultaneously undermine your own position?
Actually, that's not quite true. There were several councils (not eccumenical, but several none the less) dealing with what books are scripture, and which are not. Seems to me that the original decisions were around 300 AD. Furthermore, the RCC finally got around to officially deciding their list until the 1500s, but by then they'd screwed up so badly, they couldn't even get that right.

However, Anselm and his lot dealt with infallibility, and only since the 1800s has inerrancy been a question, to which evangelicals have a more than adequate answer.

So, let's dispense with the idea that it's been settled for the duration of that 1800 years. However, the list has been constant for those within the mainstream of Christianity, so it's an issue that's been dealt with and pretty much resolved and agreed upon.

Michael

[spl_cadet]

:lmbo: Yeah, like the RCC has NEVER been wrong... :lmbo:

Correct.


Sorry, but church tradition is FAR from inerrant.

An assertion of yours.


I may be in disagreement with the RCC, and, as such, a heretic to you, but so was Luther, Calvin, and all of protestantism, so I'm in pretty good company.

Yes, because men who decide that their vows to God aren't important, are responsible for the butcher of tens of thousands of peasants, and run a murderous dictatorship are such good company :ahem:

[spl_cadet]

Actually, that's not quite true. There were several councils (not eccumenical, but several none the less) dealing with what books are scripture, and which are not. Seems to me that the original decisions were around 300 AD.

And proclaimed the deuterocanonical books a part of the canon.

Council of Carthage, Canon 24


That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church
under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:


* Genesis
* Exodus
* Leviticus
* Numbers
* Deuteronomy
* Joshua the Son of Nun
* The Judges
* Ruth
* The Kings (4 books)
* The Chronicles (2 books)
* Job
* The Psalter
* The Five books of Solomon
* The Twelve Books of the Prophets
* Isaiah
* Jeremiah
* Ezechiel
* Daniel
* Tobit
* Judith
* Esther
* Ezra (2 books)
* Macchabees (2 books)


The New Testament:

* The Gospels (4 books)
* The Acts of the Apostles (1 book)
* The Epistles of Paul (14)
* The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2)
* The Epistles of John the Apostle (3)
* The Epistles of James the Apostle (1)
* The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1)
* The Revelation of John (1 book)


Furthermore, the RCC finally got around to officially deciding their list until the 1500s, but by then they'd screwed up so badly, they couldn't even get that right.

Because we should trust the word of a man who also wanted to get rid of the epistle of James and the book of Revelation. :ahem:

[themuzicman]

No, we should go back to when this was dealt with properly in the 300s, rather than a list from the 1500s. It has 66 books total, 39 old,27 new.

FYI, I don't discount the value of tradition, but I do not hold it to be inerrant, and Christians should study it closely, to understand why tradition is what it is, and to review those parts which need reviewing, and change those things that need changing.

Unfortunately, the RCC and EO insist on inerrancy, which means errors remain forever.

Michael

[VFarris01]

(27) And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. (29) But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

By saying, "I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine," Jesus is clear the "cup" represents His blood. There is NO CHANGE of the "wine" to blood.

I find it interesting in John 2, at the wedding in Cana, the water became wine before it was served NOT between the rim of the cup and the drinker's tongue.

(23) For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; (24) and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. (25) In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come. (27) Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. (28) But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. (29) For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.

Paul does not recognize the bread nor the cup as the actual body and blood of Jesus. Obviously the bread and "wine" are symbolic for "remembrance" and to "proclaim the Lord's death," (compare Luke 22:19). Paul's quotes Jesus as saying, "perform this ritual of eating bread and drinking wine to remember Me," these things represent Jesus they are not Jesus.

The person described in 1 Corinthians 11:27 who "shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." Note here there is a separation made between bread and cup and body and blood. The one who eats and drinks the bread and cup "in an unworthy manner," shall be guilty, NOT the one eats or drinks the flesh and blood of Christ "in an unworthy manner," ... again, clearly figurative. v29 "For he that eateth and drinketh (unworthy, VF01), eateth and drinketh judgement unto himself, if he discern not the body," or does not recognize the representation by the bread and juice as that of the body and blood of Jesus.

RC friends, carry on with your cannibalistic and traditional ritual of eating and drinking real flesh and blood as you see fit. Quote all the ECFs you deem necessary to substantiate your claim; just remember that if these same ECF does not support all of your claims (infant baptism, rosary, idol worship, etc) his pronouncement is without merit and therefore invalid as support for con/transubstantiation of bread to the flesh of Christ and wine to the blood of Christ. The appeal to the practices of the RCC and the EOC, having become errant, does nothing to support the claim either.

A figure of speech consists of a word or words used out of the ordinary sense, or order; just as we call a person dressed out of the ordinary manner or fashion a "figure": both attract our attention; and, in the case of words, the one and only object is in order to call the reader's attention to what is thus emphasized. For examples in Matthew 16:6 where, had the Lord said "the doctrine of the Pharisees is like leaven", that would have been the Figure Simile. Had He said "the doctrine of the Pharisees is leaven" the Figure in this case would have been Metaphor; by which, instead of saying one thing is like another, it is carried over (as the word Metaphor means), and states that the one thing is the other. But in Matthew 16:6, the Lord used another Figure altogether, Videlicet: Hypocatastasis (from hupo = under, kata = down, and stasis = a stationing), which means putting one of the two words (which are necessary in the case of Simile and Metaphor) down underneath, that is to say, out of sight, and thus implying it. He said, "beware of the leaven", thus implying the word "doctrine", which He really meant; and , by thus attracting the disciples attention to His words, thereby emphasized them.

In these three Figures we have a Positive, Comparative, and Superlative emphasis. The essence of Simile is resemblance; the essence of metaphor is representation (as in the case of a portrait, which is representative of some person); the essence of hypocatastasis is implication, where only one word is mentioned and another is implied.

Through non-acquaintance with Figures of Speech every Figure is to-day called "Metaphor". But this is not the case. A Metaphor is a special Figure different and disticnt from all others.

"This is My body" is the Figure Metaphor : and the Figure lies in the Verb "IS", which, as in this case, always means "represents", and must always be so expressed. It can never mean " is changed into". Hence in the Figure Metaphor, the Verb "represents" can always be substituted for "is". For example :

"The field is (or represents) the world" (Matthew 13:38).

"The good seed are (represent) the sons of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:38).

"The reapers are (represent) angels" (Matthew 13:39).

"The odours are (represent) the prayers of the saints" (Revelation 5:8).

"The seven heads are (represent) seven mountains" (Revelation 17:9).

"This cup is (represents) the new covenant" (1 Corinthians 11:25).

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not (does it not represent) the blood of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16).

Furthermore, it is a fundamental law in Greek grammar, without exception (emphasis mine, VF01), that the Article, Pronoun, and Adjective must agree in gender with the Noun to which they refer. For example, in Matthew 16:18, the Pronoun "this" is Feminine, and thus agrees with petra, which is also Feminine, and not with petros (Peter), which is Masculine.

So here : the Pronoun "this" is Neuter, and cannot agree with artos (= bread) because artos is Masculine. It must refer to what is Neuter; and this could only be the whole act of breaking the bread, which would be Neuter also; or to klasma, the broken piece (which is also Neuter).

In like manner, when He said (in verse 28) "this is my blood of the New Covenant"; "this", being Neuter, refers to poterion (= cup) and not to oinos (= wine), which is Masculine, and means :- "This [cup] represents My blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many, for remission of sins".

For, what was the Lord doing? He was making the New Covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34. If it were not made then, it can never be made at all, for no more has He blood to shed (Luke 24:39).

Now, "blood" was shed, and sacrificially used, only in connection with two things, the making of a covenant, and the making of atonement. In the former, the victim which made or ratified the covenant was slain and the body divided in two, the parties to the covenant passing between (see Genesis 15:9-18, Jeremiah 34:18, Galations 3:20). As long as the victim (the covenant-maker) was alive the covenant could have no force. See Hebrews 9:16-22.

At the last supper this New Covenant was made; and Peter's proclamation in Acts 2:38; 3:19-26; 5:31; and Paul's in 13:38; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; were based upon it. Messiah had to be "cut off", that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (Acts 3:18). But that having been accomplished, and the sufferings having been endured, nothing stood in the way of the glory which should follow. "Repent ye THEREFORE and turn [to the Lord] that your sins may be blotted out" etc. The New Covenant which had been made had provided for that, as the Lord had said in Matthew 26:28, "for the remission of sins".

In the last supper the Lord was not instituting anything with a view to the Secret (the "Mystery" to be yet revealed in the Prison Epistles); but was substituting bread and wine for the Paschal Lamb (the type being exhausted in the Antitype), because of the new meaning which the Passover should henceforth convey. It was to be the Memorial, not of the Exodus from Egypt, but of the Exodus which the Lord afterward accomplished in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31), according to the New Covenant made by His death.
Not meaning to overwhelm the reader with material or to "argue by weblink" I found these articles particularly interesting and thought they may be to others as well:

http://www.godfire.net/mybody.html
http://www.hccentral.com/eller9/chap6.html

[spl_cadet]

No, we should go back to when this was dealt with properly in the 300s, rather than a list from the 1500s. It has 66 books total, 39 old,27 new.

The list I provided was from the Council of Carthage, not the Council of Trent. The Council of Carthage took place in 397. It has 44 books, but following the style of St. Augustine it combined Baruch, Lamentations, and the Letter of Jeremiah into the book of Jeremiah, thus giving us the same exact canon as made official doctrine in the Council of Trent (though Jeremiah wasn't condensed as such in Trent).

[themuzicman]

The list I use is from Bishop Athanasius, circa 367, which is the correct one, and even he said that this is the list that the church was generally using in that day, not establishing a list, but simply recording what the church was already using.

Apparantly, when the RCC found it couldn't justify some of it's tradition, it felt the need to add the rest, in spite of their problems.

Michael

[spl_cadet]

Athanasius might have gotten the NT correct, but he did not get the OT correct (it was an open canon until Trent after all). Unless you wish to say that his list, which includes Baruch but not Esther, is the correct one. Furthermore, St. Athansius' use of the word canon in Festal Letter number 39 is with regards to the books read in the liturgy, not canon as we use the word.

[themuzicman]

Well, this is :offtopic: in any case, as the discussion is about the error of real presence.

[spl_cadet]

Thank you for your admission that you lost :teeth:

[themuzicman]

Excuse me, but just because I accept a certain canon (which is different than the RCC's, BTW), doesn't mean I accept that all tradition is inerrant. Even blind pig finds a truffle now and then! :doh:

[Maxentius]

So's transubstantiation, accepted by Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm) and unanimously accepted by the Early Church. So it isn't an issue either.

I read the web page you cited, and I think you do not draw the correct conclusion.

The EO do not mean the same thing as the RCC does when they say "transsubstantiation." It is just one word among many which they use to describe the reality of the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion. (They do get the Lutheran view wrong though. :hehe:)

Money quote:


Finally, in a slightly more wordy description, from Byzantine Theology (1974) by the eminent Orthodox scholar and theologian, John Meyendorff --

"....in the Eucharist, man participates in the glorified humanity of Christ, which is not the 'essence of God,' but a humanity still consubstantial to man and available to him as food and drink....for later Byzantine theologians, the Eucharist is Christ's transfigured, life-giving, but still human, body, en-hypostasized in the Logos and penetrated with divine 'energies.' Characteristically, one never finds the category of 'essence' (ousia) used by Byzantine theologians in a Eucharistic context. They would consider a term like 'transubstantiation' (metousiosis) improper to designate the Eucharistic mystery, and generally use the concept of metabole, found in the canon of John Chrysostom, or such dynamic terms as 'trans-elementation' (metastoicheiosis) or 're-ordination' (metarrhythmisis). [Yes, many of these terms were used, including and along with Transubstantiation].

"Transubstantiation (metousiosis) appears only in the writings of the -Latinophrones- of the thirteenth century, and is nothing but a straight translation from the Latin. The first Orthodox author to use it is Gennadios Scholarios; but, in his case as well, direct Latin influence is obvious. The Eucharist is neither a symbol to be 'contemplated' from outside nor an 'essence' distinct from humanity, but Jesus Himself, the risen Lord, 'made known through the breaking of bread' (Lk 24:35); Byzantine theologians rarely speculated beyond this realistic and soteriological affirmation of the Eucharistic presence as the glorified humanity of Christ."

Meyendorff says concerning the concept of "change of substance" in the Eucharist:

"The Byzantines did not see the substance of the bread somehow changed in the Eucharistic mystery into another substance -- the Body of Christ -- but viewed this bread as the 'type' of humanity: our humanity changed into the transfigured humanity of Christ." (from Meyendorff, pages 203-205)
(emph. added)

Maybe I am wrong, but doesn't the final emphasized section directly contradict the RCC doctrine of TS?

[VFarris01]

I wanted to repost this:
A figure of speech consists of a word or words used out of the ordinary sense, or order; just as we call a person dressed out of the ordinary manner or fashion a "figure": both attract our attention; and, in the case of words, the one and only object is in order to call the reader's attention to what is thus emphasized. For examples in Matthew 16:6 where, had the Lord said "the doctrine of the Pharisees is like leaven", that would have been the Figure Simile. Had He said "the doctrine of the Pharisees is leaven" the Figure in this case would have been Metaphor; by which, instead of saying one thing is like another, it is carried over (as the word Metaphor means), and states that the one thing is the other. But in Matthew 16:6, the Lord used another Figure altogether, Videlicet: Hypocatastasis (from hupo = under, kata = down, and stasis = a stationing), which means putting one of the two words (which are necessary in the case of Simile and Metaphor) down underneath, that is to say, out of sight, and thus implying it. He said, "beware of the leaven", thus implying the word "doctrine", which He really meant; and , by thus attracting the disciples attention to His words, thereby emphasized them.

In these three Figures we have a Positive, Comparative, and Superlative emphasis. The essence of Simile is resemblance; the essence of metaphor is representation (as in the case of a portrait, which is representative of some person); the essence of hypocatastasis is implication, where only one word is mentioned and another is implied.

Through non-acquaintance with Figures of Speech every Figure is to-day called "Metaphor". But this is not the case. A Metaphor is a special Figure different and disticnt from all others.

"This is My body" is the Figure Metaphor : and the Figure lies in the Verb "IS", which, as in this case, always means "represents", and must always be so expressed. It can never mean " is changed into". Hence in the Figure Metaphor, the Verb "represents" can always be substituted for "is". For example :

"The field is (or represents) the world" (Matthew 13:38).

"The good seed are (represent) the sons of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:38).

"The reapers are (represent) angels" (Matthew 13:39).

"The odours are (represent) the prayers of the saints" (Revelation 5:8).

"The seven heads are (represent) seven mountains" (Revelation 17:9).

"This cup is (represents) the new covenant" (1 Corinthians 11:25).

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not (does it not represent) the blood of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16).

Furthermore, it is a fundamental law in Greek grammar, without exception (emphasis mine, VF01), that the Article, Pronoun, and Adjective must agree in gender with the Noun to which they refer. For example, in Matthew 16:18, the Pronoun "this" is Feminine, and thus agrees with petra, which is also Feminine, and not with petros (Peter), which is Masculine.

So here : the Pronoun "this" is Neuter, and cannot agree with artos (= bread) because artos is Masculine. It must refer to what is Neuter; and this could only be the whole act of breaking the bread, which would be Neuter also; or to klasma, the broken piece (which is also Neuter).

In like manner, when He said (in verse 28) "this is my blood of the New Covenant"; "this", being Neuter, refers to poterion (= cup) and not to oinos (= wine), which is Masculine, and means :- "This [cup] represents My blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many, for remission of sins".

For, what was the Lord doing? He was making the New Covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34. If it were not made then, it can never be made at all, for no more has He blood to shed (Luke 24:39).

Now, "blood" was shed, and sacrificially used, only in connection with two things, the making of a covenant, and the making of atonement. In the former, the victim which made or ratified the covenant was slain and the body divided in two, the parties to the covenant passing between (see Genesis 15:9-18, Jeremiah 34:18, Galations 3:20). As long as the victim (the covenant-maker) was alive the covenant could have no force. See Hebrews 9:16-22.

At the last supper this New Covenant was made; and Peter's proclamation in Acts 2:38; 3:19-26; 5:31; and Paul's in 13:38; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; were based upon it. Messiah had to be "cut off", that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (Acts 3:18). But that having been accomplished, and the sufferings having been endured, nothing stood in the way of the glory which should follow. "Repent ye THEREFORE and turn [to the Lord] that your sins may be blotted out" etc. The New Covenant which had been made had provided for that, as the Lord had said in Matthew 26:28, "for the remission of sins".

In the last supper the Lord was not instituting anything with a view to the Secret (the "Mystery" to be yet revealed in the Prison Epistles); but was substituting bread and wine for the Paschal Lamb (the type being exhausted in the Antitype), because of the new meaning which the Passover should henceforth convey. It was to be the Memorial, not of the Exodus from Egypt, but of the Exodus which the Lord afterward accomplished in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31), according to the New Covenant made by His death.

I doubt there are many instances in in the Bible (none come to mind) in which a physical impossibility...

"The field is the world" (Matthew 13:38).

"The good seed are the sons of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:38).

"The reapers are angels" (Matthew 13:39).

"You are the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13).

"You are the light of the world (Matthew 5:14).

"I am the light of the world" (John 8:12).

"I am the door" (John 10:7).

"I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11).

"I am the vine and you are the branches" (John 15:5).

"The odours are the prayers of the saints" (Revelation 5:8).

"The seven heads are seven mountains" (Revelation 17:9).

"This cup is the new covenant" (1 Corinthians 11:25).

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the blood of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16).

...are spoken of as anything other than metaphorical.

[Maxentius]

I doubt there are many instances in in the Bible (none come to mind) in which a physical impossibility......are spoken of as anything other than metaphorical.

But there is no physical impossibility here. Jesus is God. Jesus multiplied loves and fish. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after he "stinketh." Surely Jesus can multiply his own body even if we do not understand how he does that.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:25, your source left out the part that proves that Jesus really does give his body and blood in the bread and wing:


27Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Notice that unworthy recipients are guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. I have heard some say that this refers to the Church, but that makes a hash out of St. Paul's words that both the body and the blood.

Also see verse 29, where those who do not discern the body eat and dring judgement on themselves.

Why would St. Paul want us to discern the body if this was all symbolic?

[Jezz]

I read the web page you cited, and I think you do not draw the correct conclusion.

The EO do not mean the same thing as the RCC does when they say "transsubstantiation." It is just one word among many which they use to describe the reality of the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion. (They do get the Lutheran view wrong though. :hehe:)

[snip]

Maybe I am wrong, but doesn't the final emphasized section directly contradict the RCC doctrine of TS?
No, that's how I read it too. I think that the way spl_cadet used that link was a bit misleading.

I think that they do get the Lutheran view wrong too.

[Jezz]

Actually, that's not quite true. There were several councils (not eccumenical, but several none the less) dealing with what books are scripture, and which are not. Seems to me that the original decisions were around 300 AD. Furthermore, the RCC finally got around to officially deciding their list until the 1500s, but by then they'd screwed up so badly, they couldn't even get that right.

However, Anselm and his lot dealt with infallibility, and only since the 1800s has inerrancy been a question, to which evangelicals have a more than adequate answer.

So, let's dispense with the idea that it's been settled for the duration of that 1800 years.
Red herrings.

I wasn't talking about infallibility or about the canon of Scripture. I was talking about inspiration - a doctrine that is explicitly stated in the NT itself. It was not questioned by anyone professing to be "Christian" until 1800 years ago.

But anyway, there are plenty of doctrines that were unassailed since Christianity began up until the advent of liberalism. Inspiration was simply the first that came to my mind. I could have equally chosen any one of a number of different doctrines. The fact that you chose to focus on the particular doctrine rather than its place in the argument shows that you completely missed the point.

Let's try again with a different doctrine: that of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (actually, this is even better than the inspiration example, so I'm glad you forced me to use a second example :wink:). Since its inception until the advent of liberalism, the resurrection was always considered to be bodily. Now the liberals have tried to redefine the resurrection to say that it was a symbolic resurrection of Christ, not a real one. He lived on in the memories of the early Christians, not bodily.

When you point out to such liberals that the early Christians didn't interpret it that way, but all thought it was a physical, bodily resurrection, their response is: "They might have all been mistaken." When you point out that in 1800 years of Church history it has never been an issue, they respond "It is, now."

Do you deny that such liberals are using exactly the same style of argument to reinforce their POV that you are using to reinforce your POV?

However, the list has been constant for those within the mainstream of Christianity, so it's an issue that's been dealt with and pretty much resolved and agreed upon.
The issue of Real Presence has likewise also been dealt with and pretty much resolved and agreed upon by mainstream Christians (though the details differ).

Btw, this wasn't the main post of mine I wanted you to answer. I would much prefer it if you answered post 105 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29667&page=7&pp=16#post627226) first, because (as I pointed out in that post) I've already tried to get a response out of you for those points several times, and you haven't responded.

[themuzicman]

:lmbo: Ever heard of Hymenaenism? You know, from the 1st century?

What do you think 1 Corinthians 15 was written to argue against, if not bodily resurrection? You really need to study 1st century church history.

Yes, the 1800s version is a little different, but it is nothing more than neo-hymenaenism, which Paul refuted way back then.

Sorry for not responding to all the posts. I've had three people to answer. I'll get to yours in a bit.

Michael

[themuzicman]

The first argument: The body had not been broken, Jesus spoke as though it had been broken already, therefore, Jesus must have been speaking figuratively. The argument for the blood being already poured out is completely analogous.
Refutation: This argument does not prove that Real Presence is contradictory because, as I showed in my last two posts to you, it must deny the premise of Real Presence in order to support its opening premise. If, as Real Presence asserts, the bread was the body of Christ - well, you admit that the bread was broken at the time Jesus spoke, therefore, the body was broken. Therefore, this argument fails to prove that there is a contradiction between Real Presence and Jesus' words. The methodology you used to prove the contradiction was flawed, therefore, the conclusion is not supported by the argument.
However, your argument assumes the conclusion. The bread is real, therefore is was broken, therefore real presence. Thus, it isn't an argument at all.

Furthermore, how do you challenge a premise, except to prove it's falsity? You're saying that I must assume real presence in order to demonstrate that it's not real presence. That would be like saying "you have to assume that the earth is flat before you show that it is round." It's absurd.

My argument neither assumes or denies real presense, but deals with the actual circumstances at the time of the last supper, and concludes that real presence is inaccurate.

The second argument: If Jesus could have parts of His body/blood outside of His human body, then He is not truly human.
Refutation: I will disprove this argument, as I did last time, by a redutio ad absurdum. Consider this thought experiment: Suppose Fred is truly human, and through an unfortunate accident cuts off his finger. Suppose by a miracle of God regrows his finger instantly. His original finger is still detached from his body and in a separate location. Assuming your premise (ie, that a person cannot have bits of their body separate from their body and still be truly human), then it follows that Fred is no longer truly human. This is clearly an absurd conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion must be false - which means that your premise must be false. It would not compromise Jesus' "true humanity" to have pieces of His body separate from His physical body.[quote]

When a finger is cut off, it is no longer part of the original body. It must be reattached to be rejoined to the body, or it dies.

Thus, if God heals the finger by growing a new one, that becomes part of the original body, because it is connected to the original body, and a part of the essense of being human, and the finger that was cut off was already not a part of the physical body when it was removed!

You've successfully built a strawman and burned it in effagy in an attempt to disprove a point, and failed.

The fact is that when pieces of human bodies are disconnected from the body as a whole, from which it gets its life, it is no longer part of that body.

[quote]You need to deal with these rebuttals, because they completely refute your assertion that Real Presence is a contradiction. As it stands, Real Presence belongs in the "paradox" class of doctrine, not the "contradiction" class.
Nice try, but putting absurd assumptions and strawman up aren't going to do much for your case.

Michael

[VFarris01]

Concerning 1 Corinthians 11...
Why would St. Paul want us to discern the body if this was all symbolic?
1 Corinthians 11 proves only one thing... the bread and wine are symbols.

I covered all of this in an earlier post:

Matthew 26:27-29 ASV(27)</FONT> And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. (29) But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.</FONT>
By saying, "I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine," Jesus is clear the "cup" represents His blood. There is NO CHANGE of the "wine" to blood.

I find it interesting in John 2, at the wedding in Cana, the water became wine before it was served NOT between the rim of the cup and the drinker's tongue.


1 Corinthians 11:23-29 ASV(23) For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; (24) and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. (25) In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come. (27) Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. (28) But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. (29) For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.
Paul does not recognize the bread nor the cup as the actual body and blood of Jesus. Obviously the bread and "wine" are symbolic for "remembrance" and to "proclaim the Lord's death," (compare Luke 22:19). Paul's quotes Jesus as saying, "perform this ritual of eating bread and drinking wine to remember Me," these things represent Jesus they are not Jesus.

The person described in 1 Corinthians 11:27 who "shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." Note here there is a separation made between bread and cup and body and blood. The one who eats and drinks the bread and cup "in an unworthy manner," shall be guilty, NOT the one eats or drinks the flesh and blood of Christ "in an unworthy manner," ... again, clearly figurative. v29 "For he that eateth and drinketh (unworthy, VF01), eateth and drinketh judgement unto himself, if he discern not the body," or does not recognize the representation by the bread and juice as that of the body and blood of Jesus.

Let us break down 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 further:

(23) For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; (24) and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The apostles could see very clearly Jesus was breaking bread not His body. Jesus took BREAD, gave thanks, broke the BREAD, saying, "This BREAD is My body which is for you."

(25) In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Question: Is the cup the new covenant or is it what is in the cup? The apostles could see very clearly Jesus was using wine as a representation of His blood. Jesus clearly says you are to drink it, that is wine in this ceremonial fashion, to remember Him.

(26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.

Paul then goes on to say, as often as you eat this BREAD, and drink the CUP (of wine), i.e., perform this ceremony, you proclaim the Lord's death.

The rest is so clear even a RC should be able to see the symbolism:

(27) Wherefore whosoever shall eat the BREAD or drink the CUP (of wine, VF01) of the Lord in an unworthy manner, you shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. (28) But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. (29) For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.

Performing the ritual of drinking the BREAD and drinking the CUP unworthily makes one guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Continuing the metaphor into v29 gives: (29) For he that eateth the BREAD and drinketh the CUP, eateth and drinketh judgement unto himself, if he does not recognize Jesus' sacrifice.

RC friends, carry on with your cannibalistic and traditional ritual of eating and drinking real flesh and blood as you see fit. Quote all the ECFs you deem necessary to substantiate your claim; just remember that if these same ECF does not support all of your claims (infant baptism, rosary, idol worship, etc) his pronouncement is without merit and therefore invalid as support for con/transubstantiation of bread to the flesh of Christ and wine to the blood of Christ. The appeal to the practices of the RCC and the EOC, having become errant, does nothing to support the claim either.

[Rusty T]

Like so many issues of theology, I fear that this one discussion could go on forever (and has for many hundreds of years). [Go ahead, themuzicman, and say that this statement of mine concedes defeat - I just love it when you do that]

As with every other issue that I find myself discussing with other believers, the issue comes down to authority. I should learn not to involve myself in these type of discussions - simply because I know where they will end. I look at the unquestioned testimony of the early church (St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Clement, and many others) and the unbroken Tradition of the church for 1500 years (found both in RC and EO teachings - which I believe to confess the same thing, but the EO generally do not go so far as to define how the body and blood become so).

On the other hand, those who oppose the Real Presence argue from scripture and logic. They tell us what is possible and impossible from their syllogisms, deductions, and processes. Of course, some would say that this is the only way to approach theology and the knowledge of God. Or they would say it's through the Holy Spirit inspiring not only the Scripture but also their interpretation of it. Of course, they neglect to allow for the possibility that the Holy Spirit has guided and directed the Church for two-thousand years.

I'm sure themuzicman will get his jollies and declare victory in this discussion. There was a time where that would have bothered me so much that I would have continued arguing till judgment day to save my reputation. Perhaps I will continue to defend the position that the church holds, but one things I've come to understand is that the church does not need to be defended by the likes of me.

rusty

[themuzicman]

Like so many issues of theology, I fear that this one discussion could go on forever (and has for many hundreds of years). [Go ahead, themuzicman, and say that this statement of mine concedes defeat - I just love it when you do that]
Actually, my previous post was an offer to simply end the discussion, because you appeared to be wrapping yourself in tradition. I don't have a problem with that, if you wish to do so.

As with every other issue that I find myself discussing with other believers, the issue comes down to authority. I should learn not to involve myself in these type of discussions - simply because I know where they will end. I look at the unquestioned testimony of the early church (St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Clement, and many others) and the unbroken Tradition of the church for 1500 years (found both in RC and EO teachings - which I believe to confess the same thing, but the EO generally do not go so far as to define how the body and blood become so).
And yet, after 1500 years, it came into question. With good reason. Just because this is always the way we've done it doesn't make it right.

On the other hand, those who oppose the Real Presence argue from scripture and logic. They tell us what is possible and impossible from their syllogisms, deductions, and processes. Of course, some would say that this is the only way to approach theology and the knowledge of God. Or they would say it's through the Holy Spirit inspiring not only the Scripture but also their interpretation of it. Of course, they neglect to allow for the possibility that the Holy Spirit has guided and directed the Church for two-thousand years.
God forbid we should get our doctrine from scripture.

I'm sure themuzicman will get his jollies and declare victory in this discussion. There was a time where that would have bothered me so much that I would have continued arguing till judgment day to save my reputation. Perhaps I will continue to defend the position that the church holds, but one things I've come to understand is that the church does not need to be defended by the likes of me.

rusty
I'm not sure that when a debate ends with an agreement to disagree about our assumptions that there is a victor. Hopefully we've both learned from this encounter. I know that I have. And I thank you for your time and efforts.

Michael

[Rusty T]

And yet, after 1500 years, it came into question. With good reason. Just because this is always the way we've done it doesn't make it right.

Okay, I do not want to hijack this thread - I suppose we could start one on Authority, but I do not think it will beneficial. Maybe I'm wrong.

I just wanted to reiterate something. Because something has been believed by the church for thousands of years gives added weight to its truthfulness. Let me give a couple of examples - the deity of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. These are two doctrines that have been attacked and vilified during the course of history, yet the church (embattled yes!) has held on to these doctrines. In fact, the blood of martyrs has been shed for the doctrines the church has held over these two thousand years. The same saints that people cite in defense of the Trinitarian doctrine - that faced persecution by corrupt emperors and patriarchs (oh, ours are not infallible in the least), these same saints would hold to the doctrine of the Real Presence.

The Church and her beliefs do not need to be, and have never had to be 'rediscovered', they have had to be defended and defined in order to confront heresy and apostacy. But the truth of the Gospel, the teachings of the Church, they have and will continue to stand the test of time.

Are there teachings in some bodies that do not have universal recognition and that do not have an unending line of defenders and martrys? Of course. But do not confuse traditions of men, with the Tradition of the Church.

Perhaps this is just another time I should have kept my mouth closed, but Lord, forgive me.

Thanks for your kind words, themuzicman. I hope that I never forget that there are people behind our avatars and clever nicknames. Forgive me if I have offended you in any way.

rusty

[themuzicman]

I just wanted to reiterate something. Because something has been believed by the church for thousands of years gives added weight to its truthfulness. Let me give a couple of examples - the deity of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. These are two doctrines that have been attacked and vilified during the course of history, yet the church (embattled yes!) has held on to these doctrines. In fact, the blood of martyrs has been shed for the doctrines the church has held over these two thousand years. The same saints that people cite in defense of the Trinitarian doctrine - that faced persecution by corrupt emperors and patriarchs (oh, ours are not infallible in the least), these same saints would hold to the doctrine of the Real Presence. However, these items have not been upheld soley on the basis of tradition. They have been upheld on the basis of scripture. Yes, we should give weight and defence to the position of the church (Not the Church), but that does not give it inerrancy.

In all times, the church must be prepared to give a scriptural basis for its doctrines, and when problems with the church's tradition arises, it must cede to scripture.

The Church and her beliefs do not need to be, and have never had to be 'rediscovered', they have had to be defended and defined in order to confront heresy and apostacy. But the truth of the Gospel, the teachings of the Church, they have and will continue to stand the test of time. Actually, several old church doctrines have been challenged and changed, so just because a belief is old doesn't make it right. Impassibility comes to mind.

Are there teachings in some bodies that do not have universal recognition and that do not have an unending line of defenders and martrys? Of course. But do not confuse traditions of men, with the Tradition of the Church. They are not confusable, because they are identical.

Perhaps this is just another time I should have kept my mouth closed, but Lord, forgive me.

Thanks for your kind words, themuzicman. I hope that I never forget that there are people behind our avatars and clever nicknames. Forgive me if I have offended you in any way.

rusty No offense taken. I hope that we continue in fellowship, even as we disagree about this issue.

Michael

[Maxentius]

Concerning 1 Corinthians 11...
1 Corinthians 11 proves only one thing... the bread and wine are symbols.

No, St. paul says that the cup is the sharing of the blood of Christ, and the bread the sharing of the body of Christ.( 1 Cor 10:16) His words, not mine. He also says that if we receive what you believe is symbolic bread and wine unworthily--we are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. This is a clear indication that communion is not merely symbolic, and waving your hand to make the problem go away does not change the clear words in Scripture. (More below)

Matthew 26:27-29 ASV
And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. (29) But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
By saying, "I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine," Jesus is clear the "cup" represents His blood. There is NO CHANGE of the "wine" to blood.

You would be correct only if we accept the Roman doctrine that there is no bread or wine present in communion. That is not the view of the Lutheran churches. ( I am not sure of other confessions, e.g the Episcopalians or the EO.)

Also, you skip past Jesus' words "this is my blood of the covanent..." Taken with St. Paul's clear words in 1 Corinthians 10:16, (in which context we should se 1 Cor 11) we have proof that the meal is not symbolic. For some reason, you believe that Jesus' words "this is my blood..." should be seen in the context of his statement that he will not drink wine until the last day rather than the other way around. :huh:

If the meal is symbolic, why do some become sick and die for eating bread and wine unworthily? Just stating that they do is not good enough. Why would God sentence someone to death because he abused symbols?

I find it interesting in John 2, at the wedding in Cana, the water became wine before it was served NOT between the rim of the cup and the drinker's tongue.

Apples and crocodiles. Jesus was not instituting the Lord's Supper at the marriage feast at Cana.


The person described in 1 Corinthians 11:27 who "shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." Note here there is a separation made between bread and cup and body and blood. The one who eats and drinks the bread and cup "in an unworthy manner," shall be guilty, NOT the one eats or drinks the flesh and blood of Christ "in an unworthy manner," ... again, clearly figurative.

This assumes your position: that the meal is symbolic and not the real sharing of the body and blood of Christ. It is not "clearly figurative" unless you want to see it that way. It is not the "bread and cup..." it is the bread and cup of the Lord during the Lord's Supper. So they are not simply bread and wine, they are the Lord's bread, which St. Paul says is also the body of the Lord, and the cup, which he says is the blood of the Lord. Eating unworthily is not discerning the body of the Lord in the Supper. So, if we eat the Lord's Body and drink his blood while acting or not believing that it is his body and blood we eat and drink, we are punished.

According to you, if I eat and drink bread and wine unworthily, I am somehow guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, which are not in any way except symbolcally connected to the bread and wine. I still do not see how that can be.

v29 "For he that eateth and drinketh (unworthy, VF01), eateth and drinketh judgement unto himself, if he discern not the body," or does not recognize the representation by the bread and juice as that of the body and blood of Jesus.

Juice again? That is a serious exegetical error vfarris01. Did Jesus drink wine or grape juice in the Last Supper in your view?

Anyway, you fail to show why we should be held accountable for violating symbols alone. If I fail to recognize the representation of Jesus Christ in a picture, am I guilty of his body and blood? Does God make an exception for the Lord's Supper where not recognizing the symbols is suddenly a sentence of sickness or death?

I would argue not, It is much, much more likely that we are guilty of his body and blood if we actually abuse his body and blood and not mere symbols.

The apostles could see very clearly Jesus was breaking bread not His body.

I already answered this objection. Jesus can multiply fish, he can also multiply his body.

Is the cup the new covenant or is it what is in the cup? The apostles could see very clearly Jesus was using wine as a representation of His blood. Jesus clearly says you are to drink it, that is wine in this ceremonial fashion, to remember Him.

Leaving aside the question begging--please show me how you know the individual psychological states of the individual apostles at the Last Supper. :hehe: Show me how you know what they knew, given that they lived 2000 years ago and lived in a radically different culture.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.
Paul then goes on to say, as often as you eat this BREAD, and drink the CUP (of wine), i.e., perform this ceremony, you proclaim the Lord's death.

Not so fast. There is no contradiction between proclaiming the Lord's death while actually eating his flesh and drinking his blood. If you can show one I will recant every word I wrote in this thread--otherwise, no dice. :smile:

The rest is so clear even a RC should be able to see the symbolism:

Or, "the rest is so clear even one who denies the Real Presence should be able to see it.."

(27) Wherefore whosoever shall eat the BREAD or drink the CUP (of wine, VF01) of the Lord in an unworthy manner, you shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. (28) But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. (29) For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.

As I pointed out above, this is only a problem if one subscribes to the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation (TS), which I do not.

Jesus physical presence in the bread and wine is a mystery we cannot explain using rational means--it is something Jesus told his disciples and we should accept it like children and stop trying to pierce into God's divine mejesty. That is basically my critique of TS. We can use some analogies, but we should not pretend that they explain what is going on.

RC friends, carry on with your cannibalistic and traditional ritual of eating and drinking real flesh and blood as you see fit.

If this is addressed to me, I am not RC, I am Lutheran, LCMS (http://www.lcms.org).

Quote all the ECFs you deem necessary to substantiate your claim; just remember that if these same ECF does not support all of your claims (infant baptism, rosary, idol worship, etc) his pronouncement is without merit and therefore invalid as support for con/transubstantiation of bread to the flesh of Christ and wine to the blood of Christ. The appeal to the practices of the RCC and the EOC, having become errant, does nothing to support the claim either.

I have quoted Scripture. And I think that your hermeneutic (including your use of "juice" for wine on two occasions) does not take context into account. You state that we are guilty of Jesus' body and blood if we receive unworthily simply--because it must be so to support your doctrine that the supper is symbolic. No explanation forthcomming yet.

You still have not given a good explanation as to why people should die simply because they eat some bread and drink some wine. Remember, it is you who assert they are symbols, not me.

Your objection that Jesus did not break his body in front of the Apostles has been answered on more than one occasion.

Your objection that Scripture says bread and wine are present is applicable to those who believe in TS, not others.

[Maxentius]

Okay, I do not want to hijack this thread - I suppose we could start one on Authority, but I do not think it will beneficial. Maybe I'm wrong.

[snip]

I just wanted to reiterate something. Because something has been believed by the church for thousands of years gives added weight to its truthfulness.

This is how I see Tradition as useful.

"Tradition" is not a home run, but it is something like a triple. :smile:

I understand that you have a different view of Tradition, this is just my view.

[Jezz]

:lmbo: Ever heard of Hymenaenism? You know, from the 1st century?

What do you think 1 Corinthians 15 was written to argue against, if not bodily resurrection?
Of course I'm aware of the heresy of Hymeneus. But I chose not to mention this because it only damages your position. The existence of early dissenters to the bodily resurrection can be (and is) used by liberals as evidence for their position that the earliest Christians did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus at all. You have no such similar examples that you can use for real presence (that I know of).

You really need to study 1st century church history.
You're probably right. Although I have studied early church history in some detail, I'm sure there's always more I can learn.

Yes, the 1800s version is a little different, but it is nothing more than neo-hymenaenism, which Paul refuted way back then.
And the reason that Paul didn't refute the "real absence" heresy is because in the first century there were no such heretics.

Sorry for not responding to all the posts. I've had three people to answer. I'll get to yours in a bit.
That's fine. I don't expect you to answer all my posts - heck, I'm one of the worst for that. It was only because you seemed to be ignoring the same points that I decided to say anything.

[Jezz]

However, your argument assumes the conclusion. The bread is real, therefore is was broken, therefore real presence. Thus, it isn't an argument at all.
And, as I said last time you made this comment, this is incorrect. I was not trying to prove Real Presence with this argument. I was trying to rebut your argument. Let me restate my purpose again: I am not trying to prove Real Presence here. What I am trying to do is counter your assertion (I quote): "Real presence is a contradiction."

Furthermore, how do you challenge a premise, except to prove it's falsity? You're saying that I must assume real presence in order to demonstrate that it's not real presence. That would be like saying "you have to assume that the earth is flat before you show that it is round." It's absurd.
It's called "proof by contradiction", Muz. It is a form of "reductio ad absurdum". It works like this:

Suppose that you want to prove that A is false. To do this using the method of "proof by contradiction", you do the following:

1. Start by assuming that A is true.
2. Working from this, carry out valid logical deductions until you arrive at a contradiction.

Because if A is true it leads to a contradiction, this proves that A must be false. QED.

For more information on "proof by contradiction", check out here (http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.contradict.html) or here (http://www.delphiforfun.org/Programs/Math_Topics/proof_by_contradiction.htm). Or if you don't find two links suitable, then simply go to Google and search for "proof by contradiction" to find about a zillion pages explaining what it is.

Now, having got the lesson in logic out of the way... let us examine your particular argument. You seem to be trying to prove Real Presence false using proof by contradiction, as evidenced by your statement: "Real presence is contradictory." The implied conclusion to be drawn from this (as per "proof by contradiction") is that Real Presence is false.

But the problem is, as I explained, your argument to prove the inconsistency of Real Presence is flawed. To construct a valid "proof by contradiction", one must start with the negation of the premise you are aiming to prove. For example, if you want to prove that Real Presence is false, you must start by assuming the opposite (ie, Real Presence is true) and working from there. If you don't do this (and you admitted that you have not), then your proof is invalid. An invalid proof proves nothing. Thus, you have failed to prove Real Presence is contradictory, and hence you have failed to prove it wrong.

Is this sinking in yet?

My argument neither assumes or denies real presense, but deals with the actual circumstances at the time of the last supper, and concludes that real presence is inaccurate.
Your claim was (and I quote): "Real presence is a contradiction." Not that it was inaccurate, but that it was a contradiction. You are talking about a different argument. I am sorry, but I'm not going to let you dodge like that. :smile: We're going to stay focussed on this one argument which purports to prove that Real Presence is contradictory, and I'm going to keep at you until you admit that the argument fails and you pledge to stop using it (at which point I will supply you with some pearls for your efforts), or until I get bored beating a dead horse...

When a finger is cut off, it is no longer part of the original body.
You're now trying to manufacture a distinction in order to save your argument. The fact that you had to put "original" body in there to distinguish it from the "new" body is evidence of this contrivance. The body of a human may change thoughout the lifetime of the human - but it's still essentially the same human body.

Let me ask you two questions:

1. The dismembered finger in my thought experiment - is it "flesh", in the NT meaning of the word?
2. Assuming the answer to 1 is "yes", then: whose flesh is it?

It must be reattached to be rejoined to the body, or it dies.
How is that relevant? Given that we're talking about a hypothetical situation where the "supernatural" is allowed, suppose that the finger is supernaturally preserved alive by the power. What happens to your argument then?

Thus, if God heals the finger by growing a new one, that becomes part of the original body, because it is connected to the original body, and a part of the essense of being human, and the finger that was cut off was already not a part of the physical body when it was removed!
You've said nothing different here than above, so I refer you to my above.

You've successfully built a strawman and burned it in effagy in an attempt to disprove a point, and failed.
Don't use terms that you don't understand. The above was not a strawman. A "strawman" is when you direct an argument at one other than what your opponent made. You know it's a strawman when there is nothing you can do to rebutt it - but because it's a strawman, a rebuttal is unnecessary anyway. The fact that you felt compelled to attempt to rebutt my argument proves that it was not a strawman.

At best, you could argue that it was a weak analogy (I disagree), but it is definitely not a strawman.

The fact is that when pieces of human bodies are disconnected from the body as a whole, from which it gets its life, it is no longer part of that body.
Again, this is already addressed above.

Nice try, but putting absurd assumptions and strawman up aren't going to do much for your case.
I know. That's why I am not putting up strawmen and absurd assumptions. :teeth:

[themuzicman]

Let me deal with my argument first, then:

My logic is this:

X = A
A != B
Therefore X != B

X = The bread (or the wine)
A = His body, which is broken for you (or the the blood in the new covenant which is poured out)
B = His body, which was not yet broken (or Christ's blood, which had not yet been poured out)

It's a simply equality/inequality proof.

Michael

[Jezz]

Let me deal with my argument first, then:
Probably a good move to focus on one at a time. :thumb:

My logic is this:

X = A
A != B
Therefore X != B

X = The bread (or the wine)
A = His body, which is broken for you (or the the blood in the new covenant which is poured out)
B = His body, which was not yet broken (or Christ's blood, which had not yet been poured out)

It's a simply equality/inequality proof.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

Your argument is easily disproved by "reductio ad absurdum":

-Let X = His body.
-Using your above argument, we have X != B
-Substituting for X and B, we have "His body is not equal to His body which was not yet broken"
-This is an absurd conclusion.
-Therefore, the argument is faulty.

The fault lies in the premise "A != B". To claim that a body before it is broken is not the same body as after it is broken is silly and leads to absurd conclusions (such as the one above). I mean, consider the question: "Whose body was crucified on the cross?" Your synthetic distinction between bodies makes this question impossible to answer, which raises interesting questions as to who was actually our atoning sacrifice... :smile:

Another problem with your argument (arising as a result of the above problem) is that it doesn't disprove Real Presence. You're still left with the premise of Real Presence that you started with ("X = A"), which you haven't disproven.

And in fact, this highlights another problem with your argument. You have a strawman representation of what Real Presence doctrine is. The premise of real presence is not "the bread is the broken body of Christ" but simply "the bread is the body of Christ". Thus:

X is A
Therefore: broken X is broken A
Also therefore: unbroken X is unbroken A

Where X = the bread and A = the body of Christ.

(I've deliberately used "is" instead of "=" because that's what Scripture says. The "is" relationship is not exactly the same thing as the "equality" relationship - the former is not necessarily reflexive. For example, the statement "Corvettes are cars" is a correct statement, but it does not imply "cars are Corvettes" because not all cars are Corvettes.

Anyway, something for you to think about.

[themuzicman]

So, you're saying that, at the last supper, Christ's body was already broken, and His blood in the new covenant already poured out?

[Jezz]

So, you're saying that, at the last supper, Christ's body was already broken, and His blood in the new covenant already poured out?
YES! That is what I've been saying for the last 10 posts! Give the man a cigar! :smile: That is what Real Presence teaches: the bread and wine were the body and blood, the bread was broken => the body was broken; the wine was poured out => the blood was poured out. There is no contradiction here.

I don't quite understand your fixation on the very temporal aspect of when this happened, and why it matters... oh, hang on... I just remembered you're an OVTer as well, so you think that time is sovereign over God. This means you're doubly handicapped in your efforts at understanding... Oh well, let me explain the traditional view (as I understand it) anyway...

Christ's sacrifice is eternal. It did not become effective at the instant that Christ died, or when He was raised, or whenever. It was effective once for all people of all times - including those who had been before. As tizzidale pointed out in an earlier quote, the timelessness of Christ's sacrifice is strongly hinted at in Revelation 13:8: All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The word "foundation" is katabolh and refers to the event at which the cosmos was founded, not to the physical object upon which it is built.

So yes, Jesus' body and blood was already broken/poured out when He instituted the last supper. It had been broken/poured out for as long as the universe itself had been in existence.

[themuzicman]

YES! That is what I've been saying for the last 10 posts! Give the man a cigar! :smile: That is what Real Presence teaches: the bread and wine were the body and blood, the bread was broken => the body was broken; the wine was poured out => the blood was poured out. There is no contradiction here.

I don't quite understand your fixation on the very temporal aspect of when this happened, and why it matters... oh, hang on... I just remembered you're an OVTer as well, so you think that time is sovereign over God. This means you're doubly handicapped in your efforts at understanding... Oh well, let me explain the traditional view (as I understand it) anyway...

Christ's sacrifice is eternal. It did not become effective at the instant that Christ died, or when He was raised, or whenever. It was effective once for all people of all times - including those who had been before. As tizzidale pointed out in an earlier quote, the timelessness of Christ's sacrifice is strongly hinted at in Revelation 13:8: All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The word "foundation" is katabolh and refers to the event at which the cosmos was founded, not to the physical object upon which it is built.

So yes, Jesus' body and blood was already broken/poured out when He instituted the last supper. It had been broken/poured out for as long as the universe itself had been in existence.
Well, then this is the area of disagreement. Your prooftext is SO taken out of context. John isn't making a statement about Christ's body, here.

Furthermore,greek prepositions are supposed to modify the main verb in their clause, which, in this case is "written". "Slain" is a genative participle, which goes back to "written" via "lamb". So, "From the foundation of the world" refers to the names being written, not when the lamb was slain.

Finally, Christ's body could not have been broken before His birth, because He did not take a human essense to Himself until the incarnation (unless you're saying that God is eternally corporal, which is another issue altogether.)

Now, do you wish to say that the broken body and blood poured out is somehow a broken piece of Christ's divinity, and not His humanity?

(FYI, I don't believe that time is sovereign over God any more than morality is sovereign over God. Both are simply aspects of His nature, although how we experience time and God's time are probably very different, but that's another thread.)

Michael

[Rusty T]

I just want to point out that I was not saying that Christ in His humanity was slain from Eternity, but that God's plan has always been to redeem fallen humanity. I'd just like to say one more time - HOW - the bread and the blood become the body and blood of Christ is not a legitimate question of the Church. It's like saying "How did a Virgin give Birth to the uncontainable Word of God?" It is not mystical opposed to real, but it is a reality that is beyond us.

Rusty

[themuzicman]

The bible answers the question of how a Virgin gave birth to the uncontainable Word of God. She didn't. She gave birth to the body of Jesus, not His divinity. Yes, His divinity was present in the body, but only the body physically went through the birth.

This is another error of the RCC (not sure about EO), in saying that Mary is the Mother of God. She isn't. She's the mother of Jesus, the human.

Michael

[Rusty T]

At what point did the "body" become infused(?) with the Divinity of Christ? I'm confused, themuzicman. Are you saying that Christ the Word was not the person of Jesus Christ? And if you aren't saying that (which I'm pretty confident you aren't), at what point did the person of Jesus become divine?

[Rusty T]

After reading your post, it's evident that you do believe that Jesus was divine in the womb of Mary. The Orthodox do call her the Theotokos - The Mother of God. But this is not just to honor her, but it was a reaction to the heresies of the day that said that Christ was merely a man, or that the body of Jesus was only later infused with divinity. This is not the teaching of Christianity, and as a result, by calling Mary the Mother of God - we are not saying she is the originator of Christ's Divinity - He was from the beginning; but it is a statement that the incarnation was God entering the world of humanity through humanity.

rusty

[themuzicman]

The person of Christ included two essenses. Fully human, and fully divine. Obviously, since a fully divine essense includes omnipresence, the whole of the existance of the deity did not confine Himself to the physical body He took to Himself.

That doesnt' mean that CHrist wasn't at any point fully God and fully Human. All I'm saying is that what Mary squeezed out of her body was Christ's humanity, which was already fully God, but that doesn't have physical implications.

Michael

[Rusty T]

Doesn't have physical implications? Then what the heck was the incarnation all about? Christ may have two essences, but Jesus Christ is one person. It's almost like you're saying that what was physically Jesus wasn't necessary or rather important. Maybe it was just a 'vessel' - as I've heard some assert? It is not WHAT Mary "squeezed out of her body" but WHO.

Rusty

[themuzicman]

Doesn't have physical implications? Then what the heck was the incarnation all about? Christ may have two essences, but Jesus Christ is one person. It's almost like you're saying that what was physically Jesus wasn't necessary or rather important. Maybe it was just a 'vessel' - as I've heard some assert? It is not WHAT Mary "squeezed out of her body" but WHO.

Rusty
What I meant was that the fact that Christ is divine doesn't change the physical nature of His human body. The physical is what Mary gave birth to, even though it was one with the deity, which is entirely spirit. Mary's womb did not contain the whole of the omnipresent God the Son.

In fact, as messiah, it is His human essense that makes Him able TO BE our savior, so, obviously it is important. The body wasn't merely a physical container, but was a wholly and fully human essense, as it had to be, in order to be the sacrifice.

However, that body didn't come into being until the incarnation, sometime after the angel prophesied to Mary.

Michael

[Rusty T]

Was WHO Mary give birth to God? That's the main issue when we refer to Mary as the Mother of God (God bearer). Because if he wasn't, and was rather later infused or 'graced' with Divinity, she gave birth to a mere man. By calling Mary the Mother of God - like I've said - we are not saying she is the originator of the Divinity of Christ. Rather we are affirming the incarnation. It is not an unnecessary glorification of Mary - and we do give her due honor - it is a Thanksgiving to God - for it was He who took upon himself the nature of man. "He became as we are, so that we may be as He is."

Rusty

edited to change first sentence that didn't make ANY sense :P

[themuzicman]

Well, the RCC view of the "Mother of God" elevates her to virutal deity status.

Michael

[Rusty T]

And I disagree with any belief that gives undue position or title to Mary.

[john.s]

As a newcomer to this forum, the "Real Presence" debate is of special interest to me, living and working as I do in predominantly Roman Catholic Brazil, where "eucharistic adoration" of the "Real Presence" is a common phenomenon.

Having checked through the many posts I have not been able to find an exact definition of the "Real Presence" under discussion. Is it the Roman Catholic variety, or some other?

I should be most grateful if someone would kindly explain.

[spl_cadet]

Well, the RCC view of the "Mother of God" elevates her to virutal deity status.

Michael

That's a load of crap and you know it.

[Rusty T]

Having checked through the many posts I have not been able to find an exact definition of the "Real Presence" under discussion. Is it the Roman Catholic variety, or some other?
Well, some of us come to the Real Presence debate as Lutherans or Anglicans or Orthodox. Not just the Catholics acknowledge Real Presence - although for sure their arguments are the most well known.

Rusty

[elysian]

As a newcomer to this forum, the "Real Presence" debate is of special interest to me, living and working as I do in predominantly Roman Catholic Brazil, where "eucharistic adoration" of the "Real Presence" is a common phenomenon.

Having checked through the many posts I have not been able to find an exact definition of the "Real Presence" under discussion. Is it the Roman Catholic variety, or some other?

I should be most grateful if someone would kindly explain.

I am Lutheran and therefore I take the Lutheran perspective:

"Real Presence" as defined by Lutherans is the understanding that when we partake of Holy Communion that Jesus is bodily present in, with, through and under the bread and wine. We accept the mystery and take Jesus at His word when He said "this is My Body" and "this is My Blood."

RC's believe similarly, but their view is that the elements of bread and wine are no longer present, that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood. Both RC's and Lutherans (also EO's and high church Anglicans) believe that we are partaking of Jesus' Body and Blood in Holy Communion.

Most Protestants (excepting Lutherans and high church Anglicans) believe Holy Communion to be a memorial meal, that the bread and wine (some Protestant groups use grape juice) are simply symbolic and that in participating in Holy Communion we are simply sharing fellowship with the rest of the Body of Christ.

[john.s]

That's a load of crap and you know it.
If you care to visit Brazil for example (where I currently live) or any other predominantly Roman Catholic country, you will discover that Mary has truly been "elevated to virtual deity status", as themuzicman quite correctly puts it.

[spl_cadet]

If you care to visit Brazil for example (where I currently live) or any other predominantly Roman Catholic country, you will discover that Mary has truly been "elevated to virtual deity status", as themuzicman quite correctly puts it.

Do not assert, demonstrate that that is what happens and that such is in full accordance with the teachings of Rome.

[john.s]

Thank you for your replies, although they still leave me puzzled as to what Lutherans, for example, mean when they refer to "Real Presence".

Would it be correct to assume that since Lutherans have gone back to some kind of communion with Rome they have adopted the same theological language and terminology?

If this were the case, Real Presence would mean the "Real Presence", not just of Christ's "flesh" in the bread and Christ's "blood" in the wine, but the presence of the whole living Christ, in either species.

If this is not the case, what exactly do Lutheran's believe is "present" in the "Real Presence"?

I apologise if I am being simplistic/childish. I am not a theologian, just a student of God's Word.

[john.s]

Do not assert, demonstrate that that is what happens and that such is in full accordance with the teachings of Rome.
The gradual elevation of Mary to divine status has been evident for all to see for generations. No further demonstration is needed.

If this elevation is not in full accordance with the teachings of Rome, why has Rome not only permitted it but vigorously promoted the Marian cult in various ways (Marian dogmas etc.)?

[spl_cadet]

The gradual elevation of Mary to divine status has been evident for all to see for generations. No further demonstration is needed.

If this elevation is not in full accordance with the teachings of Rome, why has Rome not only permitted it but vigorously promoted the Marian cult in various ways (Marian dogmas etc.)?

Please go to a dictionary and learn the difference between "demonstrate" and "assert."

[john.s]

Please go to a dictionary and learn the difference between "demonstrate" and "assert."
Some things are so plainly demonstrated for all to see that they need no assertion. The Marian cult is one of them.

[elysian]

Thank you for your replies, although they still leave me puzzled as to what Lutherans, for example, mean when they refer to "Real Presence".

Would it be correct to assume that since Lutherans have gone back to some kind of communion with Rome they have adopted the same theological language and terminology?

If this were the case, Real Presence would mean the "Real Presence", not just of Christ's "flesh" in the bread and Christ's "blood" in the wine, but the presence of the whole living Christ, in either species.

If this is not the case, what exactly do Lutheran's believe is "present" in the "Real Presence"?

I apologise if I am being simplistic/childish. I am not a theologian, just a student of God's Word.

I can assure you that Lutherans are not Roman Catholics and we do not consider the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as having authority in our churches.

The difference between the Roman Catholic view and the Lutheran view is this:

RC's believe that the elements of bread and wine are transformed into the literal Body and Blood of Christ- "the elements might 'look' like bread and wine but they really aren't" is their belief.

Lutherans simply accept the paradox and take Jesus at His word- for us the bread and wine are still bread and wine, but by the authority of His word they become for us His Body and His Blood. For us it is a mystery.

Martin Luther explains our understanding of this mystery in the Large Catechism: (http://www.bookofconcord.org/largecatechism.html)
Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?

Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

10] It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element.

Catholics take the Real Presence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm) a bit differently:

Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.

Hope this helps.

[john.s]

Hope this helps.[/QUOTE]
It does help, thank you. But why, if the Lutherans are not under Roman authority, do they use the typically Roman expression: "Real Presence"?

Did Luther use the "Real Presence" expression to define his doctrine of "consubstantiation" (please correct me if I am wrong in applying the latter term to Lutheran beliefs)? Or did Lutherans adopt it later, and if so, when?

[spl_cadet]

Some things are so plainly demonstrated for all to see that they need no assertion. The Marian cult is one of them.

Again, you are asserting, you are not demonstrating. Unless you are willing and capable of demonstrating that the Virgin Mary is placed on a near divine status by Catholic actions that are in full accord with Rome, your statements are simply slander and I demand their retraction and an apology.


Did Luther use the "Real Presence" expression to define his doctrine of "consubstantiation" (please correct me if I am wrong in applying the latter term to Lutheran beliefs)?

Yes he did. FYI, he also believed in the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity.

[VFarris01]

Again, you are asserting, you are not demonstrating. Unless you are willing and capable of demonstrating that the Virgin Mary is placed on a near divine status by Catholic actions that are in full accord with Rome, your statements are simply slander and I demand their retraction and an apology.How would you propose John "demonstrate" something so self evident by the reaction of those persons in the "Marion Cult." Oh, ye who has difficulty with language himself (I refer to another thread), all it takes is for you to open your eyes and look.

[spl_cadet]

How would you propose John "demonstrate" something so self evident by the reaction of those persons in the "Marion Cult."

I know quite a few Marian Catholics, none of whom think she is anywhere near divine.

[VFarris01]

I know quite a few Marian Catholics, none of whom think she is anywhere near divine.This should satisfy your requirement for a demonstration...

http://www.mary.net.au/books.php

which says in part:

Mary's Apparitions - 1061 to ?
Another important text citing the locations and history of Mary's apparitions throughout the world since 1061. The booklet is comprised of exerts which give the reader a thorough introduction to the spirituality and divinity of Mary.
These people say pointedly that Mary has "spirituality and divinity."

The woman must have some sort of divine power to be in so many places.

Consider the worship she receives when "seen."

There are probably more "shrines" to Mary than any other Biblical figure... even Jesus Himself.

[spl_cadet]

These people say pointedly that Mary has "spirituality and divinity."

1. I suspect that that is divinity in reference to the doctrine of theosis. (www.catholic-cadet.com/apol/theosis.html)
2. I don't happen to like that group just looking at it. Supports Medjugorje, which is rather controversial, many Catholics (including myself) regard it as a false apparition.


The woman must have some sort of divine power to be in so many places.

The Grace of God. St. Pio had the gift of bilocation while still alive.


Consider the worship she receives when "seen."

No worship at all. And apparitions aren't that common.


There are probably more "shrines" to Mary than any other Biblical figure... even Jesus Himself.

Perhaps. But Christ has the altars.

[john.s]

[QUOTE=spl_cadet]Again, you are asserting, you are not demonstrating. Unless you are willing and capable of demonstrating that the Virgin Mary is placed on a near divine status by Catholic actions that are in full accord with Rome, your statements are simply slander and I demand their retraction and an apology.

There is no point getting offended and taking things personally in these debates. I would urge you, Cadet, to open your eyes and look (as VFarris01 has already wisely recommended); you will then not fail to recognise the fact that Mary has gradually been placed on a near divine (and by God's law: Exodus20:2,3,4,5 prohibited) status; this has been amply demonstrated, worldwide, and for all to see, for generations.

Mary's sublime status, furthermore, is one that many Roman Catholics are zealous to promote and to amplify, as you must well know. But they usually stop short of asking for apologies from those who reject such status........

Now, to you it may not seem as deification, but to those of us who consider that such manifestations as Catholics render to Mary are due to God alone, it is deification and pure idolatry. It is also seen as one of the main causes of the divisions among God's people. We do not take personal offence and demand apologies but intercede for those who practice such things.

Maybe you could consider doing likewise if you think you and Rome are in the right.........

Can we get back to the "Real Presence"?

[john.s]

I am still totally mystified by the use of the expression “Real Presence” in connection with the Lord’s Table by some non Roman Catholics, Lutherans especially. We already know that Jesus “is in our midst when two or three are gathered together in His name” (Mat18:20), yet we do not feel it necessary to stress that presence as “real”, absolutely real though it is. The presence is too obvious and evident, based on the truthfulness of God’s Word, to need such stressing.


Why, then, do Lutherans stress a “real presence” at the Lord’s Table? Do they mean that apart from Christ’s real Mat18.20 presence, (which all Christians would readily recognize) He is also present in ANOTHER, equally real form? His flesh in the bread and His blood in the wine?

With apologies for my simplistic approach, I really would be grateful for clarification.

[Rusty T]

I can answer from a "training wheels" Orthodox perspective. The REAL PRESENCE was not a debate started by Orthodoxy. Perhaps it is a response to the Western scholastic approach - which tried to define everything. "We believe it is the blood of Christ and His body." "Oh reeeally? Care to explain how? "Well, let's examine this logically. . ."

The Orthodox Church experiences the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ - but we didn't come to that decision based on logic - but by the Word of God and His Church.

rusty

[spl_cadet]

There is no point getting offended and taking things personally in these debates. I would urge you, Cadet, to open your eyes and look (as VFarris01 has already wisely recommended); you will then not fail to recognise the fact that Mary has gradually been placed on a near divine (and by God's law: Exodus20:2,3,4,5 prohibited) status; this has been amply demonstrated, worldwide, and for all to see, for generations.

Excuse me, but you are simply making allegations AND REFUSING TO BACK THEM UP WITH ANY PROOF!!!

[VFarris01]

Excuse me, but you are simply making allegations AND REFUSING TO BACK THEM UP WITH ANY PROOF!!!You refusing to look at the proof does not mean John did not provide proof.

[themuzicman]

I can answer from a "training wheels" Orthodox perspective. The REAL PRESENCE was not a debate started by Orthodoxy. Perhaps it is a response to the Western scholastic approach - which tried to define everything. "We believe it is the blood of Christ and His body." "Oh reeeally? Care to explain how? "Well, let's examine this logically. . ."

The Orthodox Church experiences the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ - but we didn't come to that decision based on logic - but by the Word of God and His Church.

rusty Really? Well the protestant church applied a bit of heremeutics, and some systematic theology, (you know, that whole 'study to show yourself approved' thing?) and found that what you thought it said, it doesn't really say!

Michael

[Rusty T]

No, what the neo-Protestants did was ignore a couple thousand years of proven Christian doctrine and hermeneutic, decide that what was said and how it was interpreted by the Church couldn't possibly be how it really is, and then come up with another interpretation of scripture based solely upon scripture and not tempered by the experienced witness and teaching of the early Church.

Why they did this was even more telling. Mostly it was reactionary against the Roman Catholic movement, but I am guessing just as much had to do with approaching the scripture from a Western, "it's gotta make sense to me" philosophy. It also possibly had much to do with a reaction against an increasing skeptical world. How better to witness to a secular society than to couch the gospel in terminology that doesn't assault too heavily the notion of materialism vs spitualism?

You say that you applied "hermeneutics" and systematic theology as if the Church had had no theologians in the two thousand years since Christ. As if there had never been a St. John Chrysostrom, St. Basil or St. Cyril. As if these questions had not been set out in wonderful works of theology from the very beginning. The poor Church had become steeped in ritual and idolotry for too long. Aren't we happy the neo-Protestants came along and rescued us from our ignorance? No thank you, I would like to not close my mind to the Truth that Church has its own "hermeneutic" and it is the Bulwark and Foundation of Truth.

[themuzicman]

Well, your Church has one, and the church universal apparantly has more than one.

[spl_cadet]

You refusing to look at the proof does not mean John did not provide proof.

He has not given any proof, he has simply said "Oh, it's self-evident." That is not proof, that is an assertion.

[john.s]

I can answer from a "training wheels" Orthodox perspective. The REAL PRESENCE was not a debate started by Orthodoxy. Perhaps it is a response to the Western scholastic approach - which tried to define everything. "We believe it is the blood of Christ and His body." "Oh reeeally? Care to explain how? "Well, let's examine this logically. . ."

The Orthodox Church experiences the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ - but we didn't come to that decision based on logic - but by the Word of God and His Church.

rusty

Thank you for your reply Rusty. Although what you say is shocking, to say the least!

It sounds very much as if you are arguing that Lutheranism sometimes resorts to terminology that is not based on logic - "we didn't come to that decision based on logic" - in defending its doctrines. Especially when defending them against arguments that are logically irrefutable, such as those in favour of a non literal interpretation of Jesus' words in the Lord's Table context.

If you don't base yourself on logic, then what have you left but mindless mysticism?

Also, how do you reconcile obedience to God's command to love Him with all of our minds with the abandoning (even if only occasionally) of logic and common sense in the study of and defence of His Word and truth?

John

[elysian]

I am still totally mystified by the use of the expression “Real Presence” in connection with the Lord’s Table by some non Roman Catholics, Lutherans especially. We already know that Jesus “is in our midst when two or three are gathered together in His name” (Mat18:20), yet we do not feel it necessary to stress that presence as “real”, absolutely real though it is. The presence is too obvious and evident, based on the truthfulness of God’s Word, to need such stressing.


Why, then, do Lutherans stress a “real presence” at the Lord’s Table? Do they mean that apart from Christ’s real Mat18.20 presence, (which all Christians would readily recognize) He is also present in ANOTHER, equally real form? His flesh in the bread and His blood in the wine?

With apologies for my simplistic approach, I really would be grateful for clarification.

This is a good point to make because historically the Lutheran view of God is of complete omnipotence- that He is always present in, with and through His creation. God is in the prison, the homeless shelter, the 747, the Superbowl, in nature, etc. God is not Someone Who lives in a box or Who distances Himself from us. In Christ God became human- He the Creator became part of Creation. This in itself is a mystery we cannot fully comprehend. We emphasize the Real Presence in, with, through and under the bread and wine because we take Jesus at His word: He says this is My Body, this is My Blood.

We don't claim that the bread and wine change their physical substance (this is where Lutherans differ with RC's) but that Jesus is present in with and through the elements of bread and wine. It is a mystery.

When we share fellowship with other Christians yes Jesus is present with us and is in our midst. But when we share in His Supper we are communing with Him on a more intimate level: we are partaking of and being nourished by His Body and Blood. This too is mystery, but we do it because Jesus told us to!

[Rusty T]

Can we know God through logic? We can know about Him, we can ponder Him, His attributes, etc. But can we come into a relationship with Him? And how does a God who is ineffable, uncircumscribable (sic?), beyond our comprehension come to an abiding relationship with His creation?

If we can come to God through logic and worldly wisdom, what did Paul mean when he says,

1Corinthians 1:20-21 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe.
I am not saying that what is found through logic and reasoning is opposed to what is mystical - I'm saying that what is real is what is found in Christ - the fulfillment of all that the creation should be. He has redeemed fallen man, and the mystery is revealed in the Gospel.

If you don't base yourself on logic, then what have you left but mindless mysticism?
If the Bible is clear on one thing - we approach God not through our logic, but through His revelation to us - which before it was revealed was a mystery.

Mt 11:25 ¶ At that time Jesus answered and said, "I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes.
We are to love Christ with our minds - but this can NOT be done without first being brought into the revelation of God through His grace.

[john.s]

...........This in itself is a mystery we cannot fully comprehend. We emphasize the Real Presence in, with, through and under the bread and wine because we take Jesus at His word: He says this is My Body, this is My Blood.

We don't claim that the bread and wine change their physical substance (this is where Lutherans differ with RC's) but that Jesus is present in with and through the elements of bread and wine. It is a mystery.

When we share fellowship with other Christians yes Jesus is present with us and is in our midst. But when we share in His Supper we are communing with Him on a more intimate level: we are partaking of and being nourished by His Body and Blood. This too is mystery, but we do it because Jesus told us to!Don't you see that your appeal to the existence of "supposed mysteries" is a denial of Jesus’ clear teaching that He came to free us from such (Mt13.11; Mk4.11; Lk8.10; Ro16.25; Eph1.9; 6.19 etc.)? The age of mystery religions is over, save in Babylon (Rev.17) and iniquity (2Th2.7).


The mystery you refer to is, in fact, entirely of your/Lutheran creation!! For us who adhere to the clear teaching of Scripture that the Lord’s Table is a memorial and see in the broken bread and poured out wine the breaking of the Lord’s body and the shedding of His blood there is no mystery but a dreadful looking back to the price paid for our salvation and pardon and freeing from sin.


“It is a mystery” is no excuse for failure to discern the Lord’s body.


Besides, since, as you state, “Real Presence” is simply intended to convey “a deeper communing with Christ and being nourished by Him”, why use terminology which is misleading since it stresses "Presence" while failing to mention either deeper communion or nourishment?

[Rusty T]

John,

Care to answer my points in post #178, specifically about how we know God and are known by Him? By asserting the "Real Presence" (and I honestly am using the term because of the thread title) I am not saying that we partake in pure mysticism that we cannot grasp, but rather we are partakers in that Great Mystery - the GodHead - made known to us through the incarnation of Jesus Christ and in the revelation of God as Trinity. We are not just made "knowledgeable" about God - but we are made partakers in the divine nature of God.

God did not send His Son just to die for our sins, pay the appropriate price, and then just expect us to believe - and that's it. No, God came to make us what we should have been all along - partakers in Him. And is God circumscribable? Will I know everything about God, etc.? No, what the Mystery is that He has made Himself known to us. You are correct - God has shown Himself in the darkness.

Rusty

[john.s]

[QUOTE=tizzidale]Can we know God through logic? We can know about Him, we can ponder Him, His attributes, etc.

Exactly, Rusty, and "knowledge about" implies a minimum of rational cogitation. In this discussion we are pondering His Words, Rusty, and the Lutheran interpretation of them as reflected in their use of the term "Real Presence". One must assume that the Lutheran term "Real Presence" is based on some "knowledge about", based on some logical interpretation of, Jesus' Last Supper words.

Is it too much to ask what explanation a Lutheran has for his use of the expression "Real Presence" when asked by a simple lay person?

What will a Lutheran Dad say to his son if asked such a question? Will he reply "you must go to a Lutheran theological seminary to find out", or, "sorry son, I can't explain, it is an ineffable mystery"?

[john.s]

Rusty[Care to answer my points in post #178, specifically about how we know God and are known by Him?
/QUOTE]

Please see my above reply to #178. We are discussing Jesus' very specific Last Supper words and the Lutheran interpretation of them as implying a "Real Presence". As far as I am aware this is not a discussion about "how we know God", which would deserve a completely seperate thread.

Lets get back to our topic. Jesus Christ is always and very really present with us, as Scripture makes clear (Mt18.20, for ex). I would like to know in what sense is He MORE present to the Lutherans at their celebration of the Lord's Table since they use the term "Real" to describe His presence there.

[Maxentius]

Is it too much to ask what explanation a Lutheran has for his use of the expression "Real Presence" when asked by a simple lay person?

What will a Lutheran Dad say to his son if asked such a question? Will he reply "you must go to a Lutheran theological seminary to find out", or, "sorry son, I can't explain, it is an ineffable mystery"?

It is not too much to ask. I cannot explain how God accomplishes the Real Presence. The doctrine of the Real Presence does not attempt to explain how, but what we receive in Holy Communion.

We do not have to explain how God does the things he does.

So, when I use the phrase "Real Presence" as I teach our youth, I mean that when we receive communion we receive Christ's true body and blood. I explain what we receive, but not how the Real Presence is accomplished. Yes, that is a mystery. A cop-out? I don't think so, unless you want to assert that we can or should understand all of what God accomplishes.

[john.s]

It is not too much to ask. I cannot explain how God accomplishes the Real Presence. The doctrine of the Real Presence does not attempt to explain how, but what we receive in Holy Communion.
We do not have to explain how God does the things he does.
So, when I use the phrase "Real Presence" as I teach our youth, I mean that when we receive communion we receive Christ's true body and blood. I explain what we receive, but not how the Real Presence is accomplished. Yes, that is a mystery. A cop-out? I don't think so, unless you want to assert that we can or should understand all of what God accomplishes.Thank you Maxentius. That is a very helpful start. I agree we do not have to ask how God does things. In any case my enquiries are not about how or why God does things but about why Lutherans do things.

Can we go a bit deeper now. Some of your youths ask:

1) Pastor, what do you/the Lutheran church mean by “Christ’s true body and blood”? Do Lutherans here mean the "body and blood of the resurrected Christ" by this expression?

2) Pastor, what do you mean by “receiving” the body and blood here? Do we “receive” the former by eating the bread and the latter by drinking the wine?

What do you answer?

[Maxentius]

Thank you Maxentius. That is a very helpful start. I agree we do not have to ask how God does things. In any case my enquiries are not about how or why God does things but about why Lutherans do things.

Can we go a bit deeper now. Some of your youths ask:

1) Pastor, what do you/the Lutheran church mean by “Christ’s true body and blood”? Do Lutherans here mean the "body and blood of the resurrected Christ" by this expression?

2) Pastor, what do you mean by “receiving” the body and blood here? Do we “receive” the former by eating the bread and the latter by drinking the wine?

What do you answer?

Why we do communion the way we do? Or why we believe in the Real Presence?

Anyway, your questions seem to be going back toward "how". The reason I say this is that you asked specifically if we receive Jesus' resurrection body during Holy Communion. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to be a setup for asking "how can we receive Jesus' resurrection body if....." and I already said that we Lutherans do not ask "how" we only teach what we receive, namely Jesus' true body and blood.

I would also like you to explain why your interpretation is so obvious, since you are the one who has to argue that "is" does not mean "is" here, and I have never heard anything but pure human reason as to why "is" really means "signifies."

[Jezz]

Hey Muz, sorry for the delay!

Well, then this is the area of disagreement.
Yes it is.

Now, as for my prooftext - it was a bit of a side-track. It was actually a small positive case for the Real Presence. However, that's not the main point I was trying to make. The main point I was trying to make was:

1. You claimed that Real Presence was contradictory because it claims that the body and blood were already broken/poured out at the Last Supper.
2. The above is incorrect. Real Presence is not contradictory because the bread and wine were already broken/poured out - and according to the Real Presence, they were the body and blood respectively. Hence, the body and blood were already broken/poured out, and there is no contradiction.

Can I get you to admit that there is no contradiction here yet?

Your prooftext is SO taken out of context. John isn't making a statement about Christ's body, here.
He most certainly is making a comment about Christ's body, implicitly.
He is making a comment about Christ's death. Christ could not have died unless He was incarnate, and if He was incarnate he must have had a body.

Furthermore,greek prepositions are supposed to modify the main verb in their clause, which, in this case is "written". "Slain" is a genative participle, which goes back to "written" via "lamb". So, "From the foundation of the world" refers to the names being written, not when the lamb was slain.
Your comment about "slain" being in the genitive is a red herring, AFAICS. I can't see how it relates to the rest of your argument.

As for prepositions modifying the main verb - I was under the impression that they modified the nearest verb. Thus, given that "apo" comes immediately after the participle for "slain", it would seem to me that the intended meaning is:

"...whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb (slain from the foundation of the world)."

rather than:

"...whose names have not been written in (the Book of Life of the Lamb slain) from the foundation of the world."

as you would have it. If your meaning was intended, then I think the phrase "from the foundation of the world" would have been placed closer to the main verb - eg, instead of (using Wescott-Hort):

gegraptai to onoma autou en tw bibliw thV zwhV tou arniou tou esfagmenou apo katabolhV kosmou

it would be:

gegraptai apo katabolhV kosmou to onoma autou en tw bibliw thV zwhV tou arniou tou esfagmenou

or perhaps:

gegraptai to onoma autou apo katabolhV kosmou en tw bibliw thV zwhV tou arniou tou esfagmenou

Either of these two ways would have been a less ambiguous way of getting across the meaning that you claim. On the other hand, there is no other way in Greek to get across the meaning that I claim except for the way that it is written.

Finally, Christ's body could not have been broken before His birth, because He did not take a human essense to Himself until the incarnation (unless you're saying that God is eternally corporal, which is another issue altogether.)
No, I interpret this passage to mean that the question of "when" Jesus was slain doesn't matter. His atoning death is valid for all time even before His death.

Now, do you wish to say that the broken body and blood poured out is somehow a broken piece of Christ's divinity, and not His humanity?
No, I wish to say that the broken body and blood poured is a broken piece of the body which belongs to the person of Christ. I do not wish to divide the natures as you are doing. If you want to add Nestorianism to your long list of heretical beliefs go right ahead. :smile:

(FYI, I don't believe that time is sovereign over God any more than morality is sovereign over God. Both are simply aspects of His nature, although how we experience time and God's time are probably very different, but that's another thread.)
You're right, that's an argument for another thread.

[themuzicman]

If you want to add Nestorianism to your long list of heretical beliefs go right ahead.
Wow... you're certainly anxious to call me a heretic, aren't you?

Apparantly you deny the part of scripture that says that Christ took a body to Himself, instead insisting that the body must be eternal as well.

Like it or not, the breaking of the body of Christ, and the pouring out of His blood in the new covenant happened inside of time, and at a particular moment, and while it affects those who came before and those who come after, it did not occur outside of time, and it affected the whole person of Christ, man and God, to the extent that there was separation in the trinity.


Never have I argued for any separation in the person of Christ, and for you to put those words in my mouth is offensive.

Michael

[john.s]

QUOTE=Maxentius]Why we do communion the way we do? Or why we believe in the Real Presence?

Anyway, your questions seem to be going back toward "how". The reason I say this is that you asked specifically if we receive Jesus' resurrection body during Holy Communion. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to be a setup for asking "how can we receive Jesus' resurrection body if....." and I already said that we Lutherans do not ask "how" we only teach what we receive, namely Jesus' true body and blood.

I would also like you to explain why your interpretation is so obvious, since you are the one who has to argue that "is" does not mean "is" here, and I have never heard anything but pure human reason as to why "is" really means "signifies."[/QUOTE]Your imagination seems to be running away with you. Why do you see so many complications and/or mischief behind two simple and very common questions?

Again, let me repeat, I am not asking you to explain God but to explain YOURSELF. I am trying to find out what Lutherans MEAN when they say "Real Presence". When you coin an expression (it is not in the Bible, as you know) or use one coined by Rome, as in this case, the least you should be willing to do is explain what YOU mean by it. And I must assume you do that to the youth in your church.

So, please, please, could you give straight answers to my straight questions!!

[Maxentius]

I would also like you to explain why your interpretation is so obvious, since you are the one who has to argue that "is" does not mean "is" here, and I have never heard anything but pure human reason as to why "is" really means "signifies."Your imagination seems to be running away with you. Why do you see so many complications and/or mischief behind two simple and very common questions?

One reason is that I have a lot of experience discussing this topic. There are some kinds of arguments that come up again and again. I apologize if I offended you.

Again, let me repeat, I am not asking you to explain God but to explain YOURSELF. I am trying to find out what Lutherans MEAN when they say "Real Presence". When you coin an expression (it is not in the Bible, as you know) or use one coined by Rome, as in this case, the least you should be willing to do is explain what YOU mean by it. And I must assume you do that to the youth in your church. So, please, please, could you give straight answers to my straight questions!!

I already explained what we mean in post #183:

"So, when I use the phrase "Real Presence" as I teach our youth, I mean that when we receive communion we receive Christ's true body and blood. I explain what we receive, but not how the Real Presence is accomplished. Yes, that is a mystery. A cop-out? I don't think so, unless you want to assert that we can or should understand all of what God accomplishes." (emphasis added)

I am sorry if I confused you, but I fail to see what the confusion is. This explains what I mean, as well as other posts I wrote in this thread.

The term "Real Presence" is a term of convenience, like "Sola Scriptura."

Another clarification, the RCC teaches that the bread and wine are replaced by Jesus' true body and blood, though the elements seem like bread and wine to us. This is called Transubstantiation [TS]. Lutherans reject this dioctrine because St. Paul uses the terms bread and wine interchangably. The EO do not necessarily disagree with TS, but they do not really teach it either. I think that Lutherans are closer to the EO view than the Roman one.

Maybe this will be clearer:



What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

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

The Small Catechism is "official" Lutheran doctrine. Notice that Luther used the words "under the bread and wine..." That is where we reject TS, because TS asserts that there is no more bread and wine.

Luther also used what I consider to be a really good analogy:

The Real Presence is like a red hot iron--the heat and light are not mixed with the iron but the two are together.

Post #17 may be helpful, though the link does not work right now.

Does this help?

Also, what about your knock-down of the doctrine of the Real Presence?

[Jezz]

Wow, I wrote all that Greek stuff, and you just ignore it? Did you ignore it because I was wrong, or did you ignore it because I was right? And you also ignored the main question in my post - ie, if you recognised that the contradiction that you originally claimed was not actually a contradiction. Never mind, I'll be asking you again in this post. :smile:

Wow... you're certainly anxious to call me a heretic, aren't you?
Not particularly. I've been very careful to avoid calling you a heretic, and instead refer to certain beliefs that you seem to adhere to as heretical (besides which, note that I did include a smilie there to indicate I wasn't 100% serious). I deliberately do this in order to try and avoid making it into a personal attack. Holding a heretical belief does not make one a heretic. One is only a heretic if they persist in their heresy after their heresy has been explained to them, or one who leads others into heresy. I once held Nestorian beliefs too, and when I discovered that it was heretical, I ammended my beliefs accordingly. And this was all before I shifted to Orthodox theology.

So this is not meant to be a personal attack - rather, it is a statement of fact about some of the words that you are using. What you do with this statement fact is completely up to you. May the Holy Spirit guide you into the Truth.

Apparantly you deny the part of scripture that says that Christ took a body to Himself, instead insisting that the body must be eternal as well.
Not at all. But the way that you asked your question:

"Now, do you wish to say that the broken body and blood poured out is somehow a broken piece of Christ's divinity, and not His humanity?"

does imply Nestorianism. It exactly mirrors the question that you were asking about Mary being the mother of God:

"Was Mary the mother of Christ's divinity or His humanity?"

Once upon a time, when I was more anti-Catholic than I am now, I used to ask exactly this question. But as I have since discovered, it is not appropriate to treat this as an either-or question - because that divides the natures, which is the essence of the Nestorian heresy. The orthodox answer to the above question is: "Yes - Mary is the mother of the person who was called Christ - a person who is both divine and human." The question is inappropriate because it divides the natures.

You went into this in more detail in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29667&page=9&pp=16#post632315):

The bible answers the question of how a Virgin gave birth to the uncontainable Word of God. She didn't. She gave birth to the body of Jesus, not His divinity. Yes, His divinity was present in the body, but only the body physically went through the birth.

This is another error of the RCC (not sure about EO), in saying that Mary is the Mother of God. She isn't. She's the mother of Jesus, the human.
Yet again you claim that the RCC/EO are in error (yes, the EO call her "mother of God", a fact that even most mainline Protestant churches acknowledge even if they don't use the title often). The above post is a textbook exposition of the Nestorian heresy, condemned by the 3rd Ecumenical Council at Ephesus. The problem is that you're asking the question "what did Mary give birth to?" when you should be asking "whom did Mary give birth to?" The answer to the second question was that she gave birth to Jesus, who is the Word of God, and therefore, Mary gave birth to the Word of God. And therefore, she is rightly called "the mother of God". Yes, the Eastern Orthodox call her this too.

I understand the heresy that you are trying to guard against (ie, that of making Mary into a God), but in the process you're in danger of committing a heresy of your own. Calling Mary the mother of God does not imply that she is an eternal, uncreated being like the Word - rather, it merely implies that the person for whom she was a mother on this earth was the Word of God Himself. You did clear this up a bit in subsequent posts by refering specifically to essences (which I think is acceptably orthodox), but you need to be more careful in saying things like "Mary did not give birth to the Word of God/God".

Like it or not, the breaking of the body of Christ, and the pouring out of His blood in the new covenant happened inside of time, and at a particular moment, and while it affects those who came before and those who come after, it did not occur outside of time, and it affected the whole person of Christ, man and God, to the extent that there was separation in the trinity.
Ok, this part of the argument is not relevant anyway. I will concede for now that it is non-sensical to speak of Jesus having a body and blood before the incarnation.

However, this does not help you case at all - because when Jesus gave the Last Supper, He had a body already. So again, according to Real Presence: the bread isthe body of Christ, the bread was broken at the time of the meal => the body was broken at the time of the meal. There is no contradiction here. Can I get you to admit this yet? Or will you ignore it again? If you answer nothing else in my post, please answer this bit. The pearls offer still stands.

Never have I argued for any separation in the person of Christ, and for you to put those words in my mouth is offensive.
For you to complain about putting words in people's mouth is a little (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29667&page=7&pp=16#post626485) hypocritical (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29667&page=6&pp=16#post625686).

But anyway, I have not put words in your mouth. Your own words convict you here. You said (quoted above) that Mary was not the mother of the Word of God, yet you maintain that Mary was the mother of Jesus. How can she be the mother of one, but not the mother of the other - unless they are two separate persons? It seems that you did not intend that meaning (as your later posts show), but the separation of the person of Christ follows directly from your statement that Mary is not the mother of God. If they are the same person, then she must be the mother of both.

[themuzicman]

I see where my misunderstanding lies. Tizzy wants to separate Christ's deity from His status as the Word of God, which seems odd. My only point was that Tizzy seemed to be saying that Christ's deity was wholly contained in Mary's womb, which, if true, would mean that He was no longer God.

Thus, what Mary squeezed out of her body was not the whole of the person of Christ, but only the part which is His body.

Michael

[Rusty T]

I see where my misunderstanding lies. Tizzy wants to separate Christ's deity from His status as the Word of God, which seems odd. My only point was that Tizzy seemed to be saying that Christ's deity was wholly contained in Mary's womb, which, if true, would mean that He was no longer God.
Thus, what Mary squeezed out of her body was not the whole of the person of Christ, but only the part which is His body.
I find it amazing how you neglect arguments, castigate people, and then simply presume to know what I believe and think. You say, "Tizzy wants" as if you know what I want to do. Never have I said that all of Christ's divinity was "in" Jesus, nor have I implied it. But neither have I divided the divinity of Christ - as if Jesus was not always fully divine or fully God. It is a mystery. You, if I remember correctly, were the one who was attacking the status of Mary as the Mother of God because she only gave birth to His humanity - as if He was not fully divine in her womb. It was you who brought into question the very essence of the incarnation.

I find it amazing how you tend to 'divine' the thoughts and intents of the people you dialogue with. It is both insulting and demeaning to your point of view.

rusty

[themuzicman]

You're the one who said that the uncontainable Word of God was in her womb, right?

Is it uncontainable because it is (part of) His deity, or because of some other factor essential to CHrist's person?

[Rusty T]

You're the one who said that the uncontainable Word of God was in her womb, right?
Christ was fully God. From Eternity the Word of God, ineffable, uncircumscribable, unfathomable, uncontainable - yet He became man.

Is it uncontainable because it is (part of) His deity, or because of some other factor essential to CHrist's person?
See above. Christ is the Word of God, begotten of the Father before all ages. Begotten not made.

[themuzicman]

But was Christ's deity fully contained in Mary's womb?

[Rusty T]

But was Christ's deity fully contained in Mary's womb?
Sometimes we can ask the wrong questions. Instead I would ask, "Was Jesus fully God?" and we can say unabashedly yes. You ask if Christ's deity was "contained" when I make it clear that Jesus is divinely undividable, uncontainable. "Part" of Jesus was not in flesh, and "part" of Him was not left in the sky somewhere. This would divide the divinity of Christ. Because we cannot understand something does not mean we are to abandon faith in it. After all, we only know what we know about God because of His revelation, not because we 'figured it out.'

[themuzicman]

Sometimes we ask questions that explode a denomination's doctrine, but we are unwilling to address them, too. I suppose the one who holds the doctine being exploded would think that this is the wrong question.

I never said that part of Jesus was in one place and one in another. I said that the person of Jesus Christ was not contained entirely within Mary's womb. That doesn't violate the one person, two essense nature of Christ.

It does, however, put to question the idea that the uncontainable Word of God was contained by Mary's womb.

Michael

[Rusty T]

It does, however, put to question the idea that the uncontainable Word of God was contained by Mary's womb. When we say that God was contained in Mary's womb, we are not questioning the ineffability of Christ or His uncontainability - it is a statement on the incarnation itself - not on the quality of divinity. Jesus was God. It is not a theoretical equation that supposes to alleviate the mystery of the incarnation - rather it is a statement of truth. Christ was God.

[themuzicman]

However, His entire being was not contained by Mary's womb. Only His body was contained there. Since He retains all the essense of deity, He must also remain omnipresent, and is beyond containment. That does not change the fact that He is two essenses in one person, fully man and fully God.

Michael

[Jezz]

Sometimes we ask questions that explode a denomination's doctrine, but we are unwilling to address them, too. I suppose the one who holds the doctine being exploded would think that this is the wrong question.
Sometimes we have a high opinion of our own reasoning capabilities over and above those of others, which leads us to conclude that we have exploded a denomination's doctrine when in reality we go off with all the force of a wet sock. Unfortunately, the pride that we have in our own reasoning ability that causes us to miscalculate in this manner also makes us incapable of seeing our failure - in the same way that tone-deaf people cannot tell a good singer from a bad singer.

I never said that part of Jesus was in one place and one in another. I said that the person of Jesus Christ was not contained entirely within Mary's womb. That doesn't violate the one person, two essense nature of Christ.

It does, however, put to question the idea that the uncontainable Word of God was contained by Mary's womb.
It's really as simple as this:

-The Person called Jesus who was walking around, crucified, and resurrected was fully the Word of God.
-This same divine Person was the one in Mary's womb. Given that the Person in Mary's womb was God in the flesh, Mary is the "theotokos" (bearer of God).
-Although the fullness of the divine Word was present in the bodily form (Colossians 2:9), the Word of God was still omnipresent.

Yes, the uncontainable Word of God was in Mary's womb. How this happened is a mystery that cannot be explained. Even Solomon the wise couldn't figure out a similar paradox (ie, how the omnipresent God could dwell in the finite space of his newly-built temple - 1 Kings 8:27) - he was just content to take God at His word when He said that He would dwell in the temple. Similarly, we take God at His word when He says that He can become incarnate and yet remain fully divine.

But really, all that is an aside. I still want you to admit that Real Presence doesn't have the contradiction that you originally claimed. Just in case you have forgotten what the alleged contradiction was, I will quote it again:

"Real presence is a contradiction. The bread was Christ's body, which is broken, but wasn't broken. The blood was poured out, but it wasn't yet poured out."

As you seem to have finally understood, this is not a contradiction in Real Presence doctrine, because Real Presence holds that because the bread was His body, and because the bread was broken, then the body was indeed broken at the time of the Last Supper - just as Jesus said. Now, I'm going to ask you this direct question again for literally about the 7th time (please, try to actually answer it this time instead of avoiding it and focussing on other parts of my post :smile:):

Will you finally admit that this particular argument against the Real Presence is flawed?

Note what I am not asking you to do here: I'm not asking you to admit that Real Presence is correct. I'm not asking you to admit than any of your other arguments are flawed. Rest easy knowing that any admission here will not be taken as a concession on any other point. I just want you to admit that on this one point, you were wrong, and therefore acknowledge that you should stop using this flawed argument. Can you do that? The pearls are still available... :wink:

[themuzicman]

I am still unclear as to whether you think that Christ is eternally corporeal in saying that His body was broken from the foundation of the world, or whether this refers to His deity, or whether you admit that real presence is really symbolic of the act that would take place a few hours after the last supper.

Michael

[Rusty T]

I am still unclear as to whether you think that Christ is eternally corporeal in saying that His body was broken from the foundation of the world
If I may. God was not surprised by the necessity of the incarnation. It was not something He had to come up with mid-stream. The plan of God from the beginning of time was to redeem man by becoming man. This is not saying that the body of Christ itself was eternal, but that the sacrifice -in a way- was. Human history, from the beginning, points to the necessity of man's salvation. The Old Testament pointed the way to Christ. I think much of what is being said (as often happens) is cross-talk. There is a very fundamental disconnect by what we each mean by certain words.

Rusty

[teknia]

i haven't been following this thread at all, but i had a quick question. what is the exegetical reason (textual, context, grammar, pragmatics, semantics, etc.) for why one cannot take jesus' words as metaphor?

[themuzicman]

I fully understand that the incarnation was at least a possible need from the moment God decided to create. I'm not saying that God suddenly realizesd in 400BC that He'd have to come and die for these people.

However, if you're going to say that the last supper contained the literal and broken body of Christ, and the literal and poured out blood of Christ, then please tell me at what point before the last supper Christ's body was literally broken, and His blood literally poured out.

Michael

[Rusty T]

I fully understand that the incarnation was at least a possible need from the moment God decided to create. I'm not saying that God suddenly realizesd in 400BC that He'd have to come and die for these people.
Leaving aside the "at least possible", I'm glad you recognize that God was not caught off guard.

However, if you're going to say that the last supper contained the literal and broken body of Christ, and the literal and poured out blood of Christ, then please tell me at what point before the last supper Christ's body was literally broken, and His blood literally poured out.
See, this is the problem I mentioned in my last post. You say "real" and I say "real", but what we mean by them may be completely different. It is not up to me to determine the when, the why, the how. Christ did not say, "This is my body, which will be. . ." "This is my blood which will be. . ." He said, "This is my body which is broken."

[themuzicman]

See, this is the problem I mentioned in my last post. You say "real" and I say "real", but what we mean by them may be completely different. It is not up to me to determine the when, the why, the how. Christ did not say, "This is my body, which will be. . ." "This is my blood which will be. . ." He said, "This is my body which is broken."

Which is exactly the problem with a literal reading of this text. The breaking of His body and the pouring out of His blood in the new covenant had not yet occurred when Christ said these words. If we are to take Christ literally when He says "this is my body", then we need to take Him literally when He says, "which is broken for you."

I understand that you want to shrug your shoulders and claim mystery at this point, but then you need to claim mystery for the whole understanding of what Christ said, and not just the last half of the sentence, which puts the conclusion of real presence in real danger.

Michael

[Rusty T]

I really don't need to claim mystery, because the whole incarnation is a mystery. It's a mystery how Christ blessed five loaves of bread but fed a multitude. It's a mystery how he changed water into wine, how He walked on water, or raised the dead. It's a mystery, but revealed to us in the person of Christ and in His Church. I do not "claim" anything. I merely assent to the witness of Christ's church for two-thousand years. Better men than me have written and spoke on this issue.

I do not wish to "shrug my shoulders" (not only do you pretend to know my thoughts and intents, you even guess my body language - TRULY you are a prophet) and do anything other than believe that Christ is. The incarnation itself is a mystery, the Godhead is a mystery, but it has been revealed to us in Christ.

[themuzicman]

OK, so anything to do with Christ's body, then, is shrouded in mystery, and you cannot assert real presence as doctrine.

Michael

[Rusty T]

OK, so anything to do with Christ's body, then, is shrouded in mystery, and you cannot assert real presence as doctrine. I did not say this. Or imply this. We know that the Word of God became flesh. We know that He was present as a man, teaching and presenting the Kingdom of God. We know that He died upon a cross, trampling down death by death. We know He arose again from the life-giving tomb. These things, all to do with His body, are known. I am not so arrogant to say that how each of these things are so - how a God who cannot be contained was found to be a baby in the womb of a woman, or how the incarnate Christ did not lose any of His divine attributes. Or much less, how words written by men with real ink, on real paper can be called holy and of God. Or how it is when Christ says when two or three are gathered in His name, there He will be also.

It is not as if Christianity is the answer to life's mysteries. Christ himself is the answer. When one comes to Christ - it is not revealed to Him how such and such was accomplished - but instead, "Taste and see."

[themuzicman]

But you are rock solid certain that somehow Jesus can call the bread His literal broken body, even through His body had not yet been broken, when there remains a viable, historically accurate, hermeneutically allowable alternative that resolves the obvious contradiction.

Michael

[Rusty T]

It seems you would like to apply Occam's Razor to the situation. What is simpler - that Jesus was the enfleshment of God the Word or that he was simply a man? What is simpler - that Christ rose again from the tomb or that the dead do not rise? If it is "historical accuracy" that you want, it has been the teaching of the Church that the Eucharist is the very blood and body of the Lord for two thousand years. If it is 'non-contradictory' hermeneutic you want, I urge you to read the great theologians of the Church - St. John of Damascus would be a good start. If it is a theory of the incarnation, salvation of man, mystery of the Godhead that does not fly in the face of human reasoning and wisdom - I will only say that it is not found in the Good News.

Rusty

[themuzicman]

I wasn't asking about simpler. I was asking about viability.

Michael

[Rusty T]

Viable how? By rationale? By faith? By divine mystery? By syllogism?

[themuzicman]

Rationally, it isn't contradictory, it fits the scriptural historicity of the passover, and fits well with the remainder of scripture regarding communion.

[Maxentius]

But you are rock solid certain that somehow Jesus can call the bread His literal broken body, even through His body had not yet been broken, when there remains a viable, historically accurate, hermeneutically allowable alternative that resolves the obvious contradiction.

Michael

Jesus said "This IS My body... and "This IS My blood."
I cannot speak for Tizzdale, but I can be "rock solid" in my belief in the Real Presence because I trust the explicit words of my Lord and Savior. You are the one who has to create a whole theological framework to deny his words; a theological framework that no one thought of for a very long time. You are the one who says "God can't..."

Questions like "how, if his body was not yet broken..." etc. are beside the point. Jesus revealed that the bread is his body and the wine is his blood. God's thoughts and ways are higher than ours. "How" he does things is his business, he gave us anough tasks to perform.

There is no "contradiction" unless you can prove that God cannot share his true body and blood when ever and how ever he wants to. Do you have enough data to say that? Do you know all the ways God can do something? To assert your contradiction you must know that, or the contradiction is not proven.

[john.s]

I already explained what we mean in post #183:

"So, when I use the phrase "Real Presence" as I teach our youth, I mean that when we receive communion we receive Christ's true body and blood. I explain what we receive, but not how the Real Presence is accomplished. Yes, that is a mystery. A cop-out? I don't think so, unless you want to assert that we can or should understand all of what God accomplishes." (emphasis added)

I am sorry if I confused you, but I fail to see what the confusion is. This explains what I mean, as well as other posts I wrote in this thread.

Many thanks for your efforts Maxentius. However I would still be none the wiser about what Lutherans mean by "real presence = Christs true body and blood" were it not for posts by Jezz and Tizzidale. From these it is clear that what Lutherans actually believe is that Christ's "broken body and shed blood" are (somehow) "present" at the Lord's Table.

Ït is a mystery to me why you have to stress that these are "true". How could Christ's body and blood NOT be "true"? Why don't Lutherans come right out with what they believe and say instead "Christ's broken - i.e. dead body - and shed blood" are "really present".

Lutherans also obviously believe that Christ is present at the Lord's table in TWO forms. The one called "Real Presence", as described above, and the other in the way He promised in Mat18.20. Although why Lutherans should stress the REALITY of the former and not of the latter is a mystery and would seem to indicate a muddled theology.




The term "Real Presence" is a term of convenience, like "Sola Scriptura."


Sorry but I would call it a term of high inconvenience and divisiveness for the body of Christ. You must know it is an unscriptural term, coined by Rome to describe an even more unscriptural "presence" - that of the whole resurrected Christ, present both in the bread and in the wine.

In view of the Lutherans' recent reconciliation with Rome, is not their use of this Romish term a clear sign that in Eucharistic doctrines, as no doubt in many others, Lutherans are quite comfortable with Roman practices?

The Lutheran rejection of transubstantiation (which you mentionned in your post) is hardly consistent with the use of this highly loaded Romish term; is it not obvious that this use can only lead innocent sheep, or outside observers, to believe that Lutherans are in full agreement with Rome i