Calling all Orthodox.

[One Bad Pig]

If you would please, explain how your view changed on this one issue.

How did your view change on John 6:53, 54? (contexts which include John 6:35, 37, 44-45, 47, 63-65. 70-71, . . .) How from not referring to the Eucharist to the interpretation that is does?

And on the Lord's table, as the Eucharist, in,
Also 1 Corinthians 10:. . . 17, 1 Corinthians 11:. . . 23-26 . . . , Luke 22:19-21 [John 6:70-71].

I don't know that I'd given the topic a huge amount of thought, but I had been taught it was symbolic - and the other position was transubstantiation, which seemed like a case of "pretend what your senses are telling you is not true." After giving it some thought and doing some debating, I discovered a way I could accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Granted that Jesus as God became Incarnate, and as God has complete control over His Creation, if He declares 'x' to be His body, then it is (at least part of) His body. When He said, "This do in remembrance of Me," He gave His apostles the authority to do the same.

I hesitantly offered that up for discussion, hoping that those who advocated the Real Presence would shoot it down. To my distress, they did not.

[robrecht]

I will never understand why people argue about the Eucharist. Does anyone really think that Jesus, on the night before he died, celebrated a final meal with his disciples and thereby intended to institute theological dissension and a source of division among his followers?

[Manw� S�limo]

What God intends and what humans take from it are two wildly different things.

[37818]

I will never understand why people argue about the Eucharist. Does anyone really think that Jesus, on the night before he died, celebrated a final meal with his disciples and thereby intended to institute theological dissension and a source of division among his followers?

In this thread I do not wish to argue about one's beliefs about this topic. But I am interested as to how one comes to this belief. [It comes down to understanding one's own hermeneutics in Bible interpretation.]

I don't know that I'd given the topic a huge amount of thought, but I had been taught it was symbolic - and the other position was transubstantiation, which seemed like a case of "pretend what your senses are telling you is not true." After giving it some thought and doing some debating, I discovered a way I could accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Granted that Jesus as God became Incarnate, and as God has complete control over His Creation, if He declares 'x' to be His body, then it is (at least part of) His body. When He said, "This do in remembrance of Me," He gave His apostles the authority to do the same.

I hesitantly offered that up for discussion, hoping that those who advocated the Real Presence would shoot it down. To my distress, they did not.

Just the same, thank you for your reply on this matter.

[T-Shirt Ninja]

What convinces you that the Orthodox Church is the true church? Being raised Orhtodox? Being a convert to Orthodox?

I'm a convert. My journey to Orthodoxy was a result of 4 big questions: What is the Church? What is Salvation? What is Communion? What is Baptism? There are a ton of smaller questions that follow those but ultimately after investigating and talking with Orthodox and Protestants and attending services I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church is the Church that Christ himself founded.

edit: spelling

[Sparrow]

It featured a spot where the choir emulates the crowd shouting for Jesus' crucifixion. They were really getting into it; I was revolted. I had determined to at least stick it out there until after the cantata so wouldn't let down the choir director, but I could not stomach being a part of that performance.

If you would please, explain how your view changed on this one issue.

How did your view change on John 6:53, 54? (contexts which include John 6:35, 37, 44-45, 47, 63-65. 70-71, . . .) How from not referring to the Eucharist to the interpretation that is does?

And on the Lord's table, as the Eucharist, in,
Also 1 Corinthians 10:. . . 17, 1 Corinthians 11:. . . 23-26 . . . , Luke 22:19-21 [John 6:70-71].

But I am interested as to how one comes to this belief.

ismerelyAnamnēsin is one of several Greek words that the Church Fathers Christianized by sort of co-opting it and filling it out with a deeper meaning than what it had in secular Greek writing because there were concepts that Christians wanted to convey for which they needed to find words. So what this word means to Christian writers is to remember or re-collect an occurrence in such a way that the occurrence is made truly present.youtrogo or trogon,gnaw onactuallyaftersarxmerelyHereis the blood of Christ. The bread isisremembrance really means makes this passage evidence formerelyphage and trogonmost of the ECF believe and teach?) Catholic apologists pretty much curb-stomp their opponents in this area, and there are any number of articles which have compiled dozens of quotes from a large number of ECF. Here are a couple of them from Catholic Answers:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presencehttp://onefold.wordpress.com/early-c...real-presence/entire Church prior to the Reformation uniformly taught Real Presence is some sort of addition to primitive Christianity that gradually sprung up somehow; I think it was that way from the beginning (biblical exegesis, the ECF, and historical things like the fact that first century Christians were accused of being cannibals all point to this). So the entirewithout ceasing to be bread and wine

[Cow Poke]

ismerelyAnamnēsin is one of several Greek words that the Church Fathers Christianized by sort of co-opting it and filling it out with a deeper meaning than what it had in secular Greek writing because there were concepts that Christians wanted to convey for which they needed to find words. So what this word means to Christian writers is to remember or re-collect an occurrence in such a way that the occurrence is made truly present.youtrogo or trogon,gnaw onactuallyaftersarxmerelyHereis the blood of Christ. The bread isisremembrance really means makes this passage evidence formerelyphage and trogonmost of the ECF believe and teach?) Catholic apologists pretty much curb-stomp their opponents in this area, and there are any number of articles which have compiled dozens of quotes from a large number of ECF. Here are a couple of them from Catholic Answers:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presencehttp://onefold.wordpress.com/early-c...real-presence/entire Church prior to the Reformation uniformly taught Real Presence is some sort of addition to primitive Christianity that gradually sprung up somehow; I think it was that way from the beginning (biblical exegesis, the ECF, and historical things like the fact that first century Christians were accused of being cannibals all point to this). So the entirewithout ceasing to be bread and wine

Might I suggest the Reader's Digest Version next time?

[Sparrow]

[Cow Poke]

And literally gouge our eyeballs out?

I think that's a stretch - like the 12 stones after crossing the Jordan - they were a "memorial" to remind people to tell the story to their children and grandchildren.

Thanks for the Reader's Digest Version, Sparrow.

[Truthseeker]

Spiritual rather than physical? E.g., food for the spirit.

[Sparrow]

And literally gouge our eyeballs out?

If your right eye causes you to sin,

I think that's a stretch - like the 12 stones after crossing the Jordan - they were a "memorial" to remind people to tell the story to their children and grandchildren.

anamnesinevery

Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence. Fundamental to that doctrine was the liturgical recollection (anamnesin) of Christ.But in the act of remembrance the worshiping congregation believed Christ himself to be present among them. That he was also present among them apart from the Eucharist, they affirmed on the basis of such promises as Matthew 18:20, which Clement of Alexandria applied to matrimony, and Matthew 28:20, which Origen cited against Celsus as proof that the presence of God and Christ was not spatial. Yet the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seems to have presupposed that this was a special presence, neither distinct from not merely illustrative of his presence in the Church.

From Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine 1: The Emergence of Catholic Tradition (100-600), pp. 165-166. Emphasis mine.

[Ana Dragule]

What convinces you that the Orthodox Church is the true church? Being raised Orhtodox? Being a convert to Orthodox?

I found a gentleness when approaching human brokenness in the East that wasn't always present in the West and a simplicity in following Christ that was not found among some protestants, and a peacefulness in the ancient liturgy. I used to like Roman Catholicism and studied it a bit. I was a high church Protestant transplant into Evangelical Christianity (not necessarily my style). Beyond that, depends what kind of answer you are looking for. I am Oriental Orthodox.

[37818]

I found a gentleness when approaching human brokenness in the East that wasn't always present in the West and a simplicity in following Christ that was not found among some protestants, and a peacefulness in the ancient liturgy. I used to like Roman Catholicism and studied it a bit. I was a high church Protestant transplant into Evangelical Christianity (not necessarily my style). Beyond that, depends what kind of answer you are looking for. I am Oriental Orthodox.

What do you understand it to mean to follow Christ in its simplicity? In your steps, Roman Catholic, high church Protestant, Evangelical Christianity and now Oriental Orthodox. What truths did you discover true and not true each step of the way?

At any point do you know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:1, 12, 13) and know you will go to heaven (2 Corinthians 5:8)? At what point?

[One Bad Pig]

for Ana

[Ana Dragule]

What do you understand it to mean to follow Christ in its simplicity? In your steps, Roman Catholic, high church Protestant, Evangelical Christianity and now Oriental Orthodox. What truths did you discover true and not true each step of the way?

At any point do you know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:1, 12, 13) and know you will go to heaven (2 Corinthians 5:8)? At what point?

I was never Catholic. I grew up high church Protestant, but I was attracted to Catholicism after seeing a wedding as a child. I guess you just have to have faith that you are saved and seek to live for God. I never had some ah ha moment of suddenly knowing I was saved. In fact, I am less certain of my own sanctification now and more certain of trusting God's grace for salvation now. I did not choose to be evangelical or non-denominational, but I followed my family and where I could get a ride to church in college outside of on-campus Mass (after all, I was Protestant, not a papist and stuff like that) and I tried to do the good Christian thing in a Calvary Chapel or Campus Crusade-like feeding (minus participating in Campus Crusade evangelism). After studying Catholicism a bit more on my own and even considered if I married a Catholic possibly converting.

So... years failing to live up to God's mark, to the purity and holiness of heart, mind, and deed that a person ought and shame at self for hidden failure that was never discussed in genuine fellowship, add this passion for God that I don't seem to have that a Christian ought, a lack of emotional high most of the time from folksy praise songs, for a time a potential coming loss of someone dear, a great change and uncertainty in life, and an outside cause to have come to study and consider more the reason why we believe not simply doctrines but whole faiths as we do, add a recent lack of worship/fellowship, and consider my own failure in light of the scripture in which Jesus says "if you love Me, keep my commands." This was the last time I really felt like I could agree with sola scriptura and left a question of where I fit with this Western paradigm of salvation. Add also some disconnect from the Christian bubble, in which I btw lived all of my youth, as I don't think that moderate drinking, cussing in and of itself (the words alone as opposed to the state of heart or the witness which is more a matter of meaning and discernment than a blanket rule against (not unlike how cuss words themselves were considered of a lower social class originally, and I heard were much rarer in the more educated folk officially serving within the church)), and occasional jokes about human sexuality or acknowledgement a slightly less puritanical approach to human sexuality that it is inherently sinful and bad unless you completely ignore it until you have your wedding.

If God is good and loving, He must be a God of life, where our only hope for salvation really is hope and not fear. If I am damned already, there is little point of devotion, general morality sure but not devotion. There must thus be a better way of understanding God. There must be an order throughout the universe including us if we consider how it is made, and given sin and that Christ is the only the only historically verifiable savior, then He must be true. In Orthodoxy, our salvation is less about God needing a sacrifice to keep Him from damning our sinful rears and more reaching down to help us in our sinfulness and shortcomings so that we may become Holy. That is a greater salvation than redemption alone.

I do have some Messianic sympathies because I think they can express theology well, but for a few doctrines. I reject a complete rejection of tradition because while it may become vain to those who do not approach it right, it is also a tangible thing that we can do to remind ourselves that we seek God, even if everything else says we might as well be condemned and every time we worship again in that way, it's a new start humbling ourselves before the Lord, in words that are true wherever we are, in praise of God not as much proclaiming how great creation is to a folk song or singing how sappy we feel at being saved but simply how great He is-that is more real worship to me. A theology graduate from another forum years ago once answered a question that with studying theology, the more she learned, the less she knew. I think I appreciate that sentiment more, but I think that makes our faith more as I have understood faith because real faith survives testing and isn't afraid of being questions. If I really want to know God, I want to know what He wants beyond some American/Democrat/Republican cultural construct that takes on more than Bible says but ignores what might be learned of those gone by or demands conformity to share grace.