Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

. . . the Real Presence in the Eucharist or another Jesus another gospel.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Because it was never intended to be understood that way. It's like the Ark of The Covenant. It was not YHWH Himself, nor did it become YHWH when His manifested presence rested upon it.
    And if you apply that reasoning to the person of Jesus, it becomes a heresy whose name I can't recall offhand.
    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
      And if you apply that reasoning to the person of Jesus, it becomes a heresy whose name I can't recall offhand.
      I'm not trying to equate the Incarnation with a human-crafted symbol that symbolizes the Messiah. Bread and wine are made by human hands too.
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      - Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        God never declared Himself to be the Ark of the Covenant.
        And Jesus was not saying that the bread and wine had suddenly and actually become Him either. He said they represented His future sacrifice and His future resurrection, which had obviously not occurred at the time of its implementation. If it were a future symbol (as it was in the Shabbat meal) of a not-yet occurred act, then it would always be that. His instructions were to the Disciples themselves that the bread that THEY were eating was His body, and the wine THEY were drinking was His blood. Again, symbols of a future act. And when they would later repeat the ritual, it was in remembrance of Him and what He did. It was not actually Him. It does not become actual flesh and blood. While His presence is in the elements, to be sure, it does not change the elements into something else.
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        - Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          And Jesus was not saying that the bread and wine had suddenly and actually become Him either.
          How not?
          He said they represented His future sacrifice and His future resurrection, which had obviously not occurred at the time of its implementation. If it were a future symbol (as it was in the Shabbat meal) of a not-yet occurred act, then it would always be that.
          He referred to His sacrifice, yes. Resurrection, no. And you're the one calling the Eucharist a symbol, not I.
          His instructions were to the Disciples themselves that the bread that THEY were eating was His body, and the wine THEY were drinking was His blood. Again, symbols of a future act. And when they would later repeat the ritual, it was in remembrance of Him and what He did. It was not actually Him. It does not become actual flesh and blood. While His presence is in the elements, to be sure, it does not change the elements into something else.
          I agree, the elements do not physically change. However, that does not mean they do (did) not actually become (part of) Him.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            I'm not sure where you're going with this. At first glance, most of your post has no explicit connection to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Could you clarify the connection?
            That is because there is no Real Presence in the Eucharist. That is the point I'm making here.

            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            Thank you for bringing up, St Paul:

            "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?"
            "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ?" Yes.

            "The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?" And yes.

            That is because the Real Presence is NOT IN the elements of the Eucharist. But is in the Body of Christ which all true believers are of. "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." It being the remembrance of Christ's death (1 Corinthians 11:26) which the members of that one bread partake. (see also 1 John 5:1, 12; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Romans 8:9.)

            "Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?" Which is the historical fact.

            Now I presume that this fact is presumed by you and others to justify what I see as the misconception of the Real Presence being in the Eucharist it self.

            Now one can try and define the meaning of the Eucharist in many ways, and the above words speak of participation in the body and blood of Christ's sacrifice, the latter element perhaps only hinted at here, but one point is crystal clear, namely, that the Eucharist should be a source of communion among all of us, as members of the body of Christ. I do not believe 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. And yet, the various interpretations of the Eucharist have been a matter of bitter dispute in the history of the church, especially since the Reformation. I do not believe that was Jesus' intent.
            I added the underline. The dispute is because of view of the Real Presence being in the elements, which is false. And that falsehood is the cause of the dispute. The Real Presence is in the believers (1 John 5:12) not the elements.

            Now please connect the dots, as you have believed the Real Presence, as being in the elements, to be support in the view I'm contending is error. And if you would show the contrast between what I have explained and what you have argued. Thanks.

            As I understand the contrast, the Real Presence is in the elements versus the Real Presence being in the believers being the Body of Christ.
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              That is because there is no Real Presence in the Eucharist. That is the point I'm making here.
              Then why throw in unrelated material which is only going to sow confusion from its presence?
              As I understand the contrast, the Real Presence is in the elements versus the Real Presence being in the believers being the Body of Christ.
              Why can it not be in both? You appear to be arguing from, not toward, a conclusion.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                Then why throw in unrelated material which is only going to sow confusion from its presence?
                Why is it unrelated? When Holy Scripture does not support in any way the Real Presence being in the elements. What purpose do you suppose to justify the belief that there is the Real Presence in the elements?
                Why can it not be in both?
                The Real Presence being in the Body of Christ makes the claim of the Real Presence in the elements false.

                You appear to be arguing from, not toward, a conclusion.
                Truth is not contingent upon it being a conclusion. It should be the starting point.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Why is it unrelated?
                  Why is it related? And why include it when you dismiss its relation as immaterial?
                  When Holy Scripture does not support in any way the Real Presence being in the elements.
                  That's a ridiculous statement. Jesus says repeatedly in John 6 that He is the bread of life, and compares eating His flesh to the Jews eating manna in the wilderness.
                  What purpose do you suppose to justify the belief that there is the Real Presence in the elements?
                  Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking here.
                  The Real Presence being in the Body of Christ makes the claim of the Real Presence in the elements false.
                  Why? Christ calls the elements His body! You're not making any sense.
                  Truth is not contingent upon it being a conclusion. It should be the starting point.
                  Please don't play dumb. The complete lack of reasoning you're displaying here is precisely why the disagreements you so deplore within Christianity cause division. Everyone who disagrees with you over something is not following a false gospel.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    ... Now I presume that this fact is presumed by you and others to justify what I see as the misconception of the Real Presence being in the Eucharist it self.
                    I think I followed you pretty well up to here. What fact were you referring to here? And 'you are presuming' that I and others 'are presuming' this fact? If it is a fact, whatever it is, why is there any presumption involved?

                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    I added the underline. The dispute is because of view of the Real Presence being in the elements, which is false. And that falsehood is the cause of the dispute. The Real Presence is in the believers (1 John 5:12) not the elements.

                    Now please connect the dots, as you have believed the Real Presence, as being in the elements, to be support in the view I'm contending is error. And if you would show the contrast between what I have explained and what you have argued. Thanks.

                    As I understand the contrast, the Real Presence is in the elements versus the Real Presence being in the believers being the Body of Christ.
                    I think you are making some wild assumptions here. Where have I ever said that the real presence is in the elements and not in the believers? Of what value is it for you to make such a distinction (in the elements vs in the believers) and to falsely claim that I affirm one part of your distinction and deny the other part of your distinction? I'm not sure who exactly you are arguing with here, but it feels as if you are trying to manipulate my words to fit into some argument in your head.
                    Last edited by robrecht; 05-24-2014, 12:36 AM.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      How not?
                      Because they weren't. It was not the bread that was crucified, nor the wine that spilled on the ground. They were being called REMINDERS of what was about to occur with the genuine article.

                      He referred to His sacrifice, yes. Resurrection, no. And you're the one calling the Eucharist a symbol, not I.
                      Can you really separate the two?

                      I agree, the elements do not physically change. However, that does not mean they do (did) not actually become (part of) Him.
                      Nor does it mean that they did.
                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      - Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes— the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food— that is, the Lord Jesus— that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified

                        Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;” John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.
                        (Clement of Alexandria - Paedagogus - chapter 1 section 6) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm


                        As far as connecting it with resurrection, Irenaeus does so for me:

                        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. (Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies - Against Heresies Book 4, Chapter 18, section 5) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          I think I followed you pretty well up to here. What fact were you referring to here? And 'you are presuming' that I and others 'are presuming' this fact? If it is a fact, whatever it is, why is there any presumption involved?
                          The fact is the history, behind the question, "Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" What is presumed is that the Real Presence is in the Eucharist. Where in fact Holy Scriptures teach no such thing.

                          I think you are making some wild assumptions here. Where have I ever said that the real presence is in the elements and not in the believers? Of what value is it for you to make such a distinction (in the elements vs in the believers) and to falsely claim that I affirm one part of your distinction and deny the other part of your distinction? I'm not sure who exactly you are arguing with here, but it feels as if you are trying to manipulate my words to fit into some argument in your head.
                          Then please set it straight what you are contending here. Since my argument is against the false claim that the Real Presence is in the Eucharist.
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            Why is it related? And why include it when you dismiss its relation as immaterial?
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            . . . Holy Scripture does not support in any way the Real Presence being in the elements.
                            When Holy Scripture does not support in any way the Real Presence being in the elements.
                            That's a ridiculous statement. Jesus says repeatedly in John 6 that He is the bread of life, and compares eating His flesh to the Jews eating manna in the wilderness.
                            Nowhere in John 6 is Jesus speaking about the Eucharist. He is speaking about coming to Him in faith using metaphor of eating His flesh, coming to Him to never hunger, and drinking His blood, believing in Him to never thirst.

                            What purpose do you suppose to justify the belief that there is the Real Presence in the elements?
                            Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking here.
                            Why is it important that the Real Presence be in the Eucharist? The Bible doesn't teach it.
                            Why? Christ calls the elements His body! You're not making any sense.
                            In the remembrance, Jesus used the bread to represent His body and the cup to represent the blood of the New Covenant. Metaphor. It was to be and is a remembrance of what He was about to accomplish once and for all on the cross.

                            Truth is not contingent upon it being a conclusion. It should be the starting point.
                            Please don't play dumb. The complete lack of reasoning you're displaying here is precisely why the disagreements you so deplore within Christianity cause division. Everyone who disagrees with you over something is not following a false gospel.
                            Fine. Show what I'm claiming is different is not. Or show how the two views are different and do not change the one gospel. Show your view is reasonable and show my view and explain why my view is not reasonable. Set the record straight. Thanks.
                            Last edited by 37818; 05-25-2014, 12:43 AM.
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              The fact is the history, behind the question, "Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" What is presumed is that the Real Presence is in the Eucharist. Where in fact Holy Scriptures teach no such thing.

                              Then please set it straight what you are contending here. Since my argument is against the false claim that the Real Presence is in the Eucharist.
                              Same thing that I have said all along:

                              With St Paul:

                              "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?"

                              Now one can try and define the meaning of the Eucharist in many ways, and the above words speak of participation in the body and blood of Christ's sacrifice, the latter element perhaps only hinted at here, but one pont is crystal clear, namely, that the Eucharist should be a source of communion among all of us, as members of the body of Christ. I do not believe 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. And yet, the various interpretations of the Eucharist have been a matter of bitter dispute in the history of the church, especially since the Reformation. I do not believe that was Jesus' intent.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                Same thing that I have said all along:

                                With St Paul:

                                "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?"
                                Merely citing this reference begs the question as to how you derive "the Real Presence in the Eucharist" from it. From my point of view it teaches no such thing. But does in my view teach the Real Presence in the Body of Christ being made up of believers. "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." - "For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." - οτι εις αρτος εν σωμα οι πολλοι εσμεν οι γαρ παντες εκ του ενος αρτου μετεχομεν


                                Now one can try and define the meaning of the Eucharist in many ways, and the above words speak of participation in the body and blood of Christ's sacrifice, the latter element perhaps only hinted at here, but one pont is crystal clear, namely, that the Eucharist should be a source of communion among all of us, as members of the body of Christ. I do not believe 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. And yet, the various interpretations of the Eucharist have been a matter of bitter dispute in the history of the church, especially since the Reformation. I do not believe that was Jesus' intent.
                                Christ's intent was to institute a remembrance (Luke 22:19).
                                ". . . the above words speak of participation in the body and blood of Christ's sacrifice, the latter element perhaps only hinted at here, . . ." Either it is participation with Christ's sacrifice or it is not. It was not and is not since it is a remembrance of it. The sacrifice was completed on the cross once and for all. And the remembrance was instituted before the sacrifice it was to commemorate.
                                ". . . should be a source of communion among all of us, as members of the body of Christ." Members of the body are in communion [fellowship] being members of the body. Believers are in the body of Christ through faith (1 John 5:1, 4, 5, 12, 13). So the claim that "The Real Presence in the Eucharist" is an unnecessary claim, besides being a false claim.

                                Why do you think it necessary? Where does the Holy Scripture teach it?
                                Last edited by 37818; 05-26-2014, 07:22 PM.
                                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X