What is "body" in the Eucharist?

[Glenn P]

Jack, what do you think of the idea of a spiritualized body being of a completely different nature, making it unpredictable, so it is unable to be empirically tested?

Jawa, I hope you won't see this as nit-picking, but can you tell me what the word "spiritualized" even means in that question? Hopefully it doesn't just mean "different in such a way that even apparently successful arguments against it are just wrong for some reason."

Moreover, if the Catholic Mass is the sacrifice of the cross, re-presented to the Father, then it has to be the same body, surely.

[Shazard]

It's that type of anti-intellectual emptiness that irks me about Lutheranism.

You've already violated this principle in this very thread. You said that Jesus walked through walls. The NT doesn't say that, it just says that he entered the room where His disciples were. Your theorizing about how he got there should be replaced with a simple believing of the words of Scripture, surely.

The reality is that your own theological tradition does this no less that the Catholic position, expounding a doctrine of consubstantiation made possible by the ubiquity of Jesus' body.

Sorry to rant, but this is a real bugbear: Lutherans need to stop trying to have it both ways. Ont he one hand they have these theoretical constructs to explain their theology of the Lord' Supper, and on the other hand they have a smug anti-intellectualism that just "believes Christ," as though any system that does not explain Christ's words in the way that they explain it is guilty of somehow not believing Christ!

Jack but it is different if some teaching is repeated 4 times (Nature of Eucharist) and 1 not so clear passage about Christ entering room with closed doors.

[Glenn P]

Jack but it is different if some teaching is repeated 4 times (Nature of Eucharist) and 1 not so clear passage about Christ entering room with closed doors.

Shaz, the statement may be repeated 4 times, but that does not make a Lutheran interpretation of it 4 times more likely to be correct.

Besides, I was merely noting that Max was, in the case of the "walking through walls" claim, ignoring the advice that he gave about the words of Christ at the Last Supper.

[Jawa Man]

Jawa, I hope you won't see this as nit-picking, but can you tell me what the word "spiritualized" even means in that question? Hopefully it doesn't just mean "different in such a way that even apparently successful arguments against it are just wrong for some reason."

Moreover, if the Catholic Mass is the sacrifice of the cross, re-presented to the Father, then it has to be the same body, surely.

I'm not so sure what spiritualized means myself. There is only a little evidence to go on biblically it seems. For example, I can't explain why Christ was living while he still had His wounds, so I assume these are properties of the spiritualized body. In this line of thought, perhaps the body is not bound by known empirical testing. This is speculative, though it does provide an answer that affirms the Real Presence.

Also, at least in Orthodoxy, the Eucharist "is a personal encounter with the living, resurrected Christ." (http://www.myocn.net/index.php/20070...e-Trinity.html)

[historic salve]

Besides, I was merely noting that Max was, in the case of the "walking through walls" claim, ignoring the advice that he gave about the words of Christ at the Last Supper.

Hardly. How else did Christ appear inside a locked room? Did he pass through the ground and come up under the room? Did he fly over the top and crash through the ceiling? We might say that he "teleported" in but that's functionally the same thing as walking through walls.

As might be expected, the Bible leaves out the "how" and just describes the "what" when it talks about the body and blood of the Lord and the walking through walls. You can quibble about the "how" all you want, and in many cases our time is better spent elsewhere, but disbelieving the description is wrong.

[Glenn P]

Hardly. How else did Christ appear inside a locked room? Did he pass through the ground and come up under the room? Did he fly over the top and crash through the ceiling? We might say that he "teleported" in but that's functionally the same thing as walking through walls.

As might be expected, the Bible leaves out the "how" and just describes the "what" when it talks about the body and blood of the Lord and the walking through walls. You can quibble about the "how" all you want, and in many cases our time is better spent elsewhere, but disbelieving the description is wrong.

I have a feeling you have completely misunderstood everything that I said about the "walking through walls" comment. You comment here does not connect to what I said at all.

[historic salve]

I have a feeling you have completely misunderstood everything that I said about the "walking through walls" comment. You comment here does not connect to what I said at all.

Your comment had everything to do with Maxentius' "hypocrisy" by reading something into the Bible in one case when he claimed not to in another. I said that there's no other conclusion to reach in the resurrection narratives other than "Christ walked through walls." It's implied in the account, just as the proper understanding of the Eucharist is implied in Christ's statements about his body and blood, and just as (for instance) the empty tomb is implied but not mentioned in 1 Cor 15:3-8.

[Jawa Man]

One more thing-

Hopefully it doesn't just mean "different in such a way that even apparently successful arguments against it are just wrong for some reason."

I hope you don't think I am simply fishing for a quick answer to my question so I can sleep well at night. If I were doing that, I hope I'd be sick of myself. I don't think speculating here provides a good enough answer in this case - I have to assume a good amount of things that I have not proven in order to make the argument I did (that spiritualized flesh is not necessarily observable). I just want you to know I'm not being ingenuine and that I appreciate the comments you've been making. Right now, the Protestant point of view seems to make more sense, though the Proverb, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him," keeps me thinking my side is ultimately the correct one at the moment.

[Glenn P]

Your comment had everything to do with Maxentius' "hypocrisy" by reading something into the Bible in one case when he claimed not to in another.

Yes, I do know that this was my reason for commenting.

I said that there's no other conclusion to reach in the resurrection narratives other than "Christ walked through walls." It's implied in the account, just as the proper understanding of the Eucharist is implied in Christ's statements about his body and blood, and just as (for instance) the empty tomb is implied but not mentioned in 1 Cor 15:3-8.

So you agree with me then that it's fine to fit the accounts into theoretical frameworks in both cases, without claiming that we are doing otherwise. You worded yourself in such a way as to imply that you disagreed with me. All I'm saying is that it's not right to do it sometimes, but to eschew it other times in favour of the pretense to simply be "believing" the text, rather than interpreting it.

Incidentally, teleporting is not the same as walking through walls. That Jesus walked through walls is not at all entailed by that passage.

[Glenn P]

I'm not so sure what spiritualized means myself. There is only a little evidence to go on biblically it seems. For example, I can't explain why Christ was living while he still had His wounds, so I assume these are properties of the spiritualized body. In this line of thought, perhaps the body is not bound by known empirical testing.

If that's true, it still means that "spiritualized" does not mean "non-physical," so we should still expect a physical change. After all, the substance of bread does not change at all, into anything other than bread. Transubstantiation requires that the bread no longer exists, because it has become something else. But even if a spiritualized body is different from a regular one, bread is still bread, and can be empirically tested and found to be bread.

This is speculative, though it does provide an answer that affirms the Real Presence.

In what way do you think this answer affirms the real (physical) presence? (bear in mind that Reformed protestants also believe that Christ is really present - just not physically).

Also, at least in Orthodoxy, the Eucharist "is a personal encounter with the living, resurrected Christ."

Amen, it most certainly is!

[historic salve]

So you agree with me then that it's fine to fit the accounts into theoretical frameworks in both cases, without claiming that we are doing otherwise. You worded yourself in such a way as to imply that you disagreed with me. All I'm saying is that it's not right to do it sometimes, but to eschew it other times in favour of the pretense to simply be "believing" the text, rather than interpreting it.

No, I don't agree with you; you're reading that into my post. I said the accounts themselves imply the meaning of the uncertain event through description. I didn't fit them into some kind of theoretical framework. I did exactly the opposite by insisting that they didn't answer the "how" and that our time is better spent not answering it either.

Incidentally, teleporting is not the same as walking through walls. That Jesus walked through walls is not at all entailed by that passage.

I didn't say it was "the same." That would be ridiculous. I said that it was functionally the same thing.

If Christ didn't walk through the walls of the locked room, then how did he get in?

[Glenn P]

No, I don't agree with you; you're reading that into my post. I said the accounts themselves imply the meaning of the uncertain event through description. I didn't fit them into some kind of theoretical framework. I did exactly the opposite by insisting that they didn't answer the "how" and that our time is better spent not answering it either.

And yet, you fit Jesus' appearing in that room into a "walking through walls" theoretical framework. You gave that as the "how," all the while denying that Scriptures gives a "how" answer.

My problem with your claim that we should not spend time answering the "how" is that it means I have absolutely no idea what you believe when you tell me that you believe the bread is Jesus' body. That could mean a number of things, depending on the "how," and if you have no "how" answer at all, then you don't believe that there is any particular way in which the bread is the body.

I didn't say it was "the same." That would be ridiculous. I said that it was functionally the same thing.

OK, so you now admit that there was more than one possibility to get the same funtional outcome, and maybe Jesus' "walking through walls" is not entailed at all.

If Christ didn't walk through the walls of the locked room, then how did he get in?

You yourself have already given two examples, which you say are not the same thing: Walking though walls, or teleporting. I offer a third: Opening the door, even though it had been locked.

[Maxentius]

Jawa,

So you mean His body took on a mystical nature that possibly has no similar basis in physical reality as a pre-resurrection body?

I wouldn't say "no similar basis", because it is still a body. But there is also a discontinuity between our present bodies and a "spiritualized" or "glorified" or, if you are Orthodox, a "divinized" body. We don't have enough empiracle data (ahem) to make detailed determinations about the qualities of this spiritualized body, but we do have enough data not to make simple deductions about it based on our solely own bodies.

This actually would make sense, especially in light of Orthodox ideas about the body; a view I've heard a lot is that when God "made skins" for us in the Garden, that was when we actually first received flesh like we have today, and before this point we were simply clothed with the glory of God. It would make sense that Christ's body is now restored to this state that is beyond explanation to describe, being a spiritualized body.

We don't believe that.

Thanks a lot for your input. You offered some perspectives I hadn't considered.

You are welcome.

[Maxentius]

Well, that's convenient. It's good to know that if something doesn't conform to one's preconceived notions, one can get around it by calling that which doesn't confirm merely an accident(in the philosophical sense).

Maybe it is convenient, but if God says something, I think I should believe it, don't you?

[Maxentius]

Show me a Protestant of any stripe who confesses that Jesus didn't really mean it.

All I can say is, here I stand. I don't think a lot of "interpretation" is needed for Christ's words of institution, unless one finds then offensive to one's philosophy. But then, a lot of things in Christianity should be offensive to one's philosophy, so if philosophy is to be queen, let her be queen everywhere.