Things I don't get about Real Presence

[Maxentius]

The stone was rolled away from Jesus' tomb; it was not rolled back into place.

Very well, then did Jesus pass through solid rock? The point I was trying to make is that Calvin, for one, was so wed to his philosophy about human nature that he was basically re-writing Scripture to suit his philosophy. (And I am pretty cool with Calvin--though I disagree with him in places..)

I don't have a problem with saying that Mary is the Mother of God, or that God died for our sins, in the sense that I am affirming that Jesus is truly God. However in saying those things it should be understood that Mary is not the Mother of God the Father, and that God the Father did not die for our sins.

She is the mother of God the Son of God according to his human nature. Would you agree? The point is that we need to speak in terms of "who" and not "what". If, as we apparently agree, Jesus is one person with two natures, it is dangerous to speak about him in ways like "Mary is the mother of Jesus, but not of God" which I think is implicitly Nestorian.

So, if Mary is the mother of God according to his human nature, we bow have a question as to whether or not the two natures in the one person give their attributes to the person without mingling the two natures. If they do, we can make the case that e.g. skin and bones are attributes of the person, and this person. Thus, the person of the Logos died for our sins, but only according to his human nature. And so the person of the logos descended into hell, rose from the dead. etc.

This same person, I submit, can distribute his body and blood when ever and where ever he pleases because the person is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc.

Jesus' post-resurrection body does show unusual attributes, although arguably not more unusual than walking on water, which he did prior to the resurrection. I also don't view "Jesus has a resurrected body" to justify an "anything goes" approach to speculations about the Real Presence.

No one said anything about "anything goes..." I have, in fact, stuck to Scripture and what it says about the Incarnation. It is just that the arguments against taking Jesus' own words at the Last Supper "literally" are usually based on assertions that e.g. a human body cannot be in the Eucharist because Jesus' body is at the right hand of the Father. So what does go is that it takes more than claims about a human body's properties to refute that Jesus meant his words about his body and blood to be about his body and blood in the Eucharist and "received in the mouth" in the words of the Book of Concord, and not actually about his body and blood not being received in the mouth.

But more importantly, I don't see anything in the Lord's Supper, either in the gospels or in 1 Corinthians, to make me think that Jesus intended to be speaking of his physical presence within the bread and wine that he was passing around at the table, which of course was prior to Jesus' resurrection body.

He said "This is my body", and so far the only objections boil down to science and philosophy, not Scripture and not the Fathers (who are to be interpreted in light of Scripture, of course). The best answer was from Kelp P, that it would be cannibalistic. However, I am not sure it is actually cannibalistic based upon the usual definition of cannibalism; it is a miracle. I would also like to see where in Scripture we are told to take these words symbolically?

[Kelp]

On the point that the Last Supper was pre-Resurrection, we already know that God can act without respect to time. The Lamb was slain before the foundations of the Earth.

[RBerman]

Very well, then did Jesus pass through solid rock? The point I was trying to make is that Calvin, for one, was so wed to his philosophy about human nature that he was basically re-writing Scripture to suit his philosophy. (And I am pretty cool with Calvin--though I disagree with him in places..)

Given Jesus' "phasing powers" as seen elsewhere post-resurrection, it seems safe to say that he could have exited the tomb before the rock was rolled away. We don't know whether he actually did, however.

She is the mother of God the Son of God according to his human nature. Would you agree? The point is that we need to speak in terms of "who" and not "what". If, as we apparently agree, Jesus is one person with two natures, it is dangerous to speak about him in ways like "Mary is the mother of Jesus, but not of God" which I think is implicitly Nestorian.

So, if Mary is the mother of God according to his human nature, we now have a question as to whether or not the two natures in the one person give their attributes to the person without mingling the two natures. If they do, we can make the case that e.g. skin and bones are attributes of the person, and this person. Thus, the person of the Logos died for our sins, but only according to his human nature. And so the person of the logos descended into hell, rose from the dead. etc.

As I said, I am happy saying that Mary is the mother of God, as long as it's clear that she is not the mother of God the Father. I am agreeable to the rest of your observations here.

This same person, I submit, can distribute his body and blood when ever and where ever he pleases because the person is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc.

As long as we don't get into a "God can make a rock so big that he can't lift it" scenario. Language can play tricks. And the real issue is what you address next:

No one said anything about "anything goes..." I have, in fact, stuck to Scripture and what it says about the Incarnation. It is just that the arguments against taking Jesus' own words at the Last Supper "literally" are usually based on assertions that e.g. a human body cannot be in the Eucharist because Jesus' body is at the right hand of the Father. So what does go is that it takes more than claims about a human body's properties to refute that Jesus meant his words about his body and blood to be about his body and blood in the Eucharist and "received in the mouth" in the words of the Book of Concord, and not actually about his body and blood not being received in the mouth.

He said "This is my body", and so far the only objections boil down to science and philosophy, not Scripture and not the Fathers (who are to be interpreted in light of Scripture, of course). The best answer was from Kelp P, that it would be cannibalistic. However, I am not sure it is actually cannibalistic based upon the usual definition of cannibalism; it is a miracle. I would also like to see where in Scripture we are told to take these words symbolically?

My argument against "This is my body" being taken literally is not from science or philosophy, but from the context of Scripture. Jesus is sitting in the presence of his disciples, physically, when he takes a piece of bread, breaks it, and says, "This is my body, broken for you." Twenty four hours later, Jesus has died on the cross after being tortured. In that context, it seems most reasonable to think that his words to the disciples were not about any change in the bread, but rather were using the bread to signify the fate of the actual body of Christ.

[Carrikature]

Well, you're going to have to explain what it means for an immaterial God to be somewhere if you want to make a distinction between where God is and where God acts. There's a special sense in which God is in heaven, and a sense in which God is in our hearts, but I don't consider either of those in opposition to the idea that God is everywhere in another sense.

I'm not sure that's entirely possible. My concept is that God can be somewhere when He is manifesting Himself, such as the burning bush or the visit to Abraham. I am not sure that Moses striking the rock and it pouring forth water required a physical manifestation by God. I'm not sure if it'd be required for Gideon's series of tests, either. My understanding of the usage for 'presence' (checked a couple dictionaries and such to verify it) speaks much more to a physical existence. This is, of course, inapplicable to an immaterial God. Hence, I find the concept of omnipresence either redundant or misleading.

My point is that it's appropriate to call God "He" because that's how he identifies himself. That doesn't mean that everything true of a human "he" is true of God, though. Such terms are helpful when all parties understand what they do and don't mean, and unhelpful otherwise.

Indeed.





For what it's worth, I think the issue of 'presence' as it relates to God is fundamental to an understanding of what form, if any, the Real Presence would take.

[RBerman]

I'm not sure that's entirely possible. My concept is that God can be somewhere when He is manifesting Himself, such as the burning bush or the visit to Abraham. I am not sure that Moses striking the rock and it pouring forth water required a physical manifestation by God. I'm not sure if it'd be required for Gideon's series of tests, either. My understanding of the usage for 'presence' (checked a couple dictionaries and such to verify it) speaks much more to a physical existence. This is, of course, inapplicable to an immaterial God. Hence, I find the concept of omnipresence either redundant or misleading.

Well, you will find it misleading as long as you insist that it implies physicality, which I do not. I can appreciate the argument that it's redundant because it's included in omniscience and omnipotence. But as I said earlier, I consider omniscience to be included in omnipotence as well, but I don't mind calling out some specific ramifications of God's omnipotence, and using a term to describe it.

For what it's worth, I think the issue of 'presence' as it relates to God is fundamental to an understanding of what form, if any, the Real Presence would take.

And thus even in my paradigm it becomes important to specify in what sense God is "present" in the Eucharist. I can agree that he is "really present" if we mean "truly present." But sometimes "really" is used to mean "in a physical (real) sense," and that I cannot back up from Scripture.

[Carrikature]

Well, you will find it misleading as long as you insist that it implies physicality, which I do not. I can appreciate the argument that it's redundant because it's included in omniscience and omnipotence. But as I said earlier, I consider omniscience to be included in omnipotence as well, but I don't mind calling out some specific ramifications of God's omnipotence, and using a term to describe it.

Can you point me to something that indicates 'presence' is used for something other than implied physicality?

And thus even in my paradigm it becomes important to specify in what sense God is "present" in the Eucharist. I can agree that he is "really present" if we mean "truly present." But sometimes "really" is used to mean "in a physical (real) sense," and that I cannot back up from Scripture.

Agreed.

[RBerman]

Can you point me to something that indicates 'presence' is used for something other than implied physicality?

Psalm 139:7

Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?

As is typical for Hebrew poetry, David says the same thing in two slightly different ways. "where shall I go" parallels "where shall I flee", and "from your Spirit" parallels "from your presence." Can we agree that the presence of a spirit is not a physical thing, especially when it's everywhere you go?

[Maxentius]

On the point that the Last Supper was pre-Resurrection, we already know that God can act without respect to time. The Lamb was slain before the foundations of the Earth.

Precisely. Also, since Jesus, before he rose, made bread appear out of nowhere, there is no reason he could not have distributed his body before he died.

Basically, most of the objections to the RP don't seem too powerful to me.

[Maxentius]

Given Jesus' "phasing powers" as seen elsewhere post-resurrection, it seems safe to say that he could have exited the tomb before the rock was rolled away. We don't know whether he actually did, however.

I believe the Gospel of Mark states that an angel rolled the stone away.

I am agreeable to the rest of your observations here.

OK

My argument against "This is my body" being taken literally is not from science or philosophy, but from the context of Scripture. Jesus is sitting in the presence of his disciples, physically, when he takes a piece of bread, breaks it, and says, "This is my body, broken for you." Twenty four hours later, Jesus has died on the cross after being tortured. In that context, it seems most reasonable to think that his words to the disciples were not about any change in the bread, but rather were using the bread to signify the fate of the actual body of Christ.

I simply disagree. I think his words are to be taken literally--I do not see the context as an "either/or"--and he could have said that he was using symbolic language, instead he chose a rather straightforward identification of the bread and wine with his body and blood. Them there o=is St. Paul stating that those who fail to discern the body are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. In all the passages which address Holy Communion, ISTM it is a stretch to see the words as symbolic. I don't expect to convince you, this argument is about 500 years old already.

[OneSizeFit]

Is it a contradiction to say that shaking Jesus' hand is shaking God's hand?

If so, I am afraid yo ufall into a form of Nestorianism. If not, then there is no contradiction in saying the bread and wine are Jesus' body and blood respectively--even while remaining bread and wine.

There is a problem in only seeing transubstantiation as the only way of explaining the real presence.

the thread should have ended here. i understand 100%. it still appears like bread and wine, but it's essence is not earthly. I'm definitely seeing the connection between the incarnation and the Eucharist.

[Obsidian]

Them there o=is St. Paul stating that those who fail to discern the body are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

In the context of 1 Corinthians 11, failing to discern/distinguish/judge the body doesn't seem to have anything to do with a theological error. It has to do with selfishness and a lack of love toward other Christians. (And even if it did have to do with theological error, that wouldn't particularly prove that your theology is correct.)

[Kelp]

the thread should have ended here. i understand 100%. it still appears like bread and wine, but it's essence is not earthly. I'm definitely seeing the connection between the incarnation and the Eucharist.

Don't try to end to end my thread, son.

I'm still working on the cannibalism question, just reading the rest of the Book of Concord.

[Kelp]

This might help on the metaphor issue. All emphasis mine. http://bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php#para48

48] Now, all the circumstances of the institution of the Holy Supper testify that these words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which in themselves are simple, plain, clear, firm, and indubitable, cannot and must not be understood otherwise than in their usual, proper, and common signification. For since Christ gives this command [concerning eating His body, etc.] at the table and at supper, there is indeed no doubt that He speaks of real, natural bread and of natural wine, also of oral eating and drinking, so that there can be no metaphor, that is, a change of meaning, in the word bread, as though the body of Christ were a spiritual bread or a spiritual food of souls. 49] Likewise, also Christ Himself takes care that there be no metonymy either, that is, that in the same manner there be no change of meaning in the word body, and that He does not speak concerning a sign of His body, or concerning an emblem [a symbol] or figurative body, or concerning the virtue of His body and the benefits which He has earned by the sacrifice of His body [for us], but of His true, essential body, which He delivered into death for us, and of His true, essential blood, which He shed for us on the tree [altar] of the cross for the remission of sins.

50] Now, surely there is no interpreter of the words of Jesus Christ as faithful and sure as the Lord Christ Himself, who understands best His words and His heart and opinion, and who is the wisest and most knowing for expounding them; and here, as in the making of His last will and testament and of His everabiding covenant and union,

And I think, especially salient:

as elsewhere in [presenting and confirming] all articles of faith, and in the institution of all other signs of the covenant and of grace or sacraments, as [for example] circumcision, the various offerings in the Old Testament and Holy Baptism, He uses not allegorical, but entirely proper, simple, indubitable, and clear words; and in order that no misunderstanding can occur, He explains them more clearly with the words: Given for you, shed for you. 51] He also allows His disciples to rest in the simple, proper sense, and commands them that they should thus teach all nations to observe what He had commanded them, the apostles.

[Kelp]

In the context of 1 Corinthians 11, failing to discern/distinguish/judge the body doesn't seem to have anything to do with a theological error. It has to do with selfishness and a lack of love toward other Christians. (And even if it did have to do with theological error, that wouldn't particularly prove that your theology is correct.)

I guess one problem I have with that is it doesn't seem to address the issue of false Christians taking communion. If the Eucharist only confers a spiritual benefit and a false believer has no part of God's Spirit, how is the unbeliever really transgressing anything, he's essentially just having a snack.

[OneSizeFit]

Don't try to end to end my thread, son.

by no means!

tastes like a wafer, feels like God!