Featured My dilemma

I'm at work, so I'll just say this for now: The statements referenced that Jesus made in John 6 were made a considerable time before the Last Supper, so this cannot refer to any doctrine of the Lord's Supper. When I get home, I'll have more on this subject.

 

It can't? I really don't see why not. Although Christ's words here are in fact uttered well before the celebration of the Last supper, and He doesn't mention the Supper here per se, His Words certainly foretell the specific meaning that He would later attribute to the Supper in the upper room. This is also consistent with the meaning given by Paul in 1 CORINTHIANS 10 and 11, and this is certainly the way in which the Church seemed to understand His words from the beginning. Indeed, the Lord's Supper is the only other instance in the Gospels in which He specificallly speaks of eating His Body and drinking His blood. (And of course, there are other examples in the Gospels in which Jesus taught something that was yet to take place, but at the time He taught it the disciples didn't understand His meaning)

 

So did the wine and bread of the actual Last Supper become the body and blood of Christ? Or did that only take effect after the crucifixion?

If it took effect during the Last Supper, then you have a case of Christ's body being in multiple places at one time. If Christ is fully Man, this is a physical impossibility. You can write this off by saying that, as God [since most of us believe Christ is both fully God (as the second person of the Godhead) and fully Man (as God incarnate on Earth)], He could do whatever He wanted, but in no other place was Christ shown to break such physical laws as to be in two places at one time, let alone in multiple places at one time.

 

I want to wait till I get home this afternoon to reply in detail on this subject because I have some literature I want to draw from. But what I will show will be convincing. Also, I want to make sure I post in the right spirit. This is a very important subject, and care must be taken in what is said and how it is said. This is one area of doctrine that keeps me out of the RCC and other "high church" traditions.

 

This is indeed one arguement. I'll have more later.

One note for now: If this was true, then Jesus changed the bread and wine into Himself and ate Himself at the Last Supper.

 

Well, Augustine for one believed that Christ, in some sense at least, was holding in His hands His body and blood at the Last Supper. Christ said it was His Body and Blood, and Paul agrees that the cup and the bread were the communion/partaking of Christ's Body/blood (not merely pictures of the same).

First, 'the Real Presence' is not a carnal presence nor even a local presence, so there is no problem supernaturally sharing His Body and Blood in the forms of bread/wine while locally being present at the Table or in Heaven at the Father's Right Hand.

Second, some would argue that feeding the 5000 from five loaves and two fishes, or changing water into wine, are violations of physical laws (as would be walking on the water). Yet, Jesus who was fully human had no problem doing either. If He could figure out how to work those miracles, then it really shouldn't be a problem for Him to communicate sacramentally His Body/Blood to us while being locally in Heaven (or at the Table).

 

Augustine also believed a baby had to be baptized or it would burn in Hell. Forgive me if I'd rather look to the scripture than to what Augustine thought about the scripture.

Christ may have referred to it as His blood, but then referencing the same cup He said "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom." (Matt 26:26-29). So Jesus Himself used varying language on the issue. In reference to the bread, yes, Jesus said it was His body, but consider also what Paul wrote of the event:

Paul's clear instructions to the church at Corinth do not force literalism on the event, but instead explicitly state that taking the bread and the wine are a "proclamation" of the Lord's death.

Some could argue the feeding of the 5000 was a breaking of a physical law, but we have Biblical precedence of God taking little and making much. Consider Elisha and the woman with the pot of oil in 2 Kings 4. We have no biblical precedent for Christ in human body being in multiple places at once.


Let me ask you this, DT...do you actually believe that the bread becomes the physical body of Christ? That the wine becomes the physical blood of Christ?

If yes, then that belief is first a violation of Levitical law (Lev 17:14), is second a violation of the hypostatic union of Christ's divine and human natures, and is lastly simply unbiblical, as no language in the scripture outright states such as the RCC believes, but rather, as I noted, requires an all-too-literal interpretation of words from our Lord when it is known He often used parables and analogies to convey meaning.

 

I was using him as an example, as one highly regarded among the early Church particularly in the West. I don't agree with every thing he taught either (i.e. especially that particular baptism belief you mentioned), but his view on the Eucharist is fairly representative of the other early churchmen.

Fair enough. JESUS said "This is My Body; This is My Blood". PAUL stated that the Cup of Blessing is the COMMUNION (PARTAKING) of the Blood of Christ and the Bread is the COMMUNION (PARTAKING) of the BODY of Christ. (Neither said: "This is a PICTURE of the Body and Blood" :smilewinkgrin: )

Yeah, all that's great and true. Paul indeed spoke in 1 Corinthians 11 of the Supper being a "proclamation" of Christ's death, and certainly it is that, but in 1 Corinthians 10 Paul spoke of the wine/bread as being the COMMUNION (PARTAKING) of the Body/Blood of Christ. It's BOTH a "partaking" AND a "proclamation"--not either/or.

What is more, later in chapter 11, Paul warns against taking the Supper unworthily and thereby sinning against the body and blood of Christ. That doesn't make much sense if the bread and wine are mere visual aids.

We also don't have biblical precedent before Christ's Incarnation of Virgin's conceiving either, nor of One Man dying on a Cross for the sins of the whole world.

Neither the bread nor wine change to being physical body and blood. Empirically they retain their same physical properties. However, these elements indeed become the physical occasion/means of spiritually partaking the Body and Blood of Christ. Notice in my previous post I spoke of Christ "SUPERNATURALLY sharing" his Body and Blood (not NATURALLY) and that He could "communicate SACRAMENTALLY" (not carnally) the same in the forms of bread and wine.

Irenaeus spoke of there being TWO realities--an EARTHLY (bread and wine) and a HEAVENLY (Body and Blood)--and that's good enough for me. :thumbs:

If you have specific questions/concerns about transubstantiation (which I don't believe) you may want to pose this question to the Roman Catholic folks here.

I don't think Scripture can necessarily support the weight of the doctrine of transubstantiation, but it certainly teaches much more than Zwinglian memorialism.

 

Good post and response. One question though...

Jesus also said "I am the door." (John 10) Not I am an analogy of a door or I am the picture of a door. Do you think Jesus is a physical door?

Sounds a bit facetious, yes, but it's a genuine question...

 

No, I don't think it's facetious at all. I posed that same question back when I was a Baptist and didn't yet believe in the 'Real Presence'*

Jesus indeed in John 10 said "I am the door", just as He said "I am the Bread of Life" in John 6 and "I am the Vine" in John 15. And if we stopped there, then, yeah, one can obviously see that He's speaking metaphorically in all three cases.

However, we know that in John 6 He didn't stop there--if He did, there'd be no controversy. Jesus went on to say: "...and this bread that I give is MY FLESH which I give for the life of the world (John 6:51)" and then He said several times that one had to EAT His Flesh and DRINK His blood to have eternal life and that his Flesh and Blood were food and drink indeed.

It would be as if in John 10 Jesus proceeded to say "..and this DOOR of which I'm speaking is an open passageway in the midst of My Flesh" and "He who walks through this open passage in the midst of My Flesh has Eternal life" and "My Flesh contains an open traversable passageway in its midst indeed"

Or consider John 15--it would be like Jesus going on to say: "...and this VINE of which I speak is My Flesh which you must engraft yourselves to" or "My Flesh is a true vine indeed."

Likewise, neither do we find any subsequent private discussions between Christ in His apostles in which He points to a physical DOOR and states, "This is My Body--walk through this", nor to a physical VINE and states, "This is My Flesh--attach yourselves to this, all of you!". However, we do have such language in the upper room regarding actual physical food and drink which He identifies with His Body and Blood, the same Body and Blood that He had taught sometime earlier (in John 6) that people needed to somehow eat and drink in order to have eternal life. The Disciples who had stuck it out with Jesus, knowing He had the words of life (John 6:68) learned at that time what His earlier words had meant--that He was indeed speaking spiritually (and sacramentally), rather than carnally (i.e. cannibalistically), as those who walked away supposed He was meaning (John 6:63). In other words, the bread and wine, which they would physically consume, were to become the means in which Christ would spiritually feed them with His body and blood.

And of course, we don't have any apostolic statements calling a certain physical door or a certain physical plant the communion/partaking of the body of Christ. We do have such statement in the case of the cup they blessed and the bread they broke (1 Cor 10:16).

I think when one considers these differences, one can see how it was that the Church historically understood Christ to be speaking realistically (albeit sacramentally) in the case of eating and drinking His Body and Blood, while merely speaking metaphorically in the case of the Door and the Vine statements.

(*reminder that 'REAL PRESENCE' doesn't necessarily equate to transubstantiation--I'll let the Roman Catholics chime in if they want to defend that particular view)

 

And of course in Anglicanism, every view from Zwinglianism through transsubstantiation has been and is held.

 

Maybe we kind of derailed your thread. I apologize for that.

 

Except that the Church of Rome indeed does see the Mass as jesus lietrally sacrificing Himself towards the people...

main problem with Toman church is hey it denies the Cross of Chrsit saves anyone, and that salvation instead is based upon being a catholic who relies upon their taking of sacraments to save them from their sins....

The Church of rome is the real saviour, not jesus!

 

You are wise not to get a study Bible at this time. However, I would recommend the Thompson Chain Reference Bible. It is nonsectarian but is very helpful in studying the Bible.

As for prayer I have found that most of my praying consists of short prayers throughout the day. I have also found that the prayers of David often help me to express my thoughts to God.

 

The Roman Catholics {Not Catholic as they are not the "universal" Church. The universal Church is composed of all the redeemed.} claim they are not sacrificing Jesus Christ again but they really are. In transubstantiation the elements are changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Canon VIII clearly shows that the Eucharist is the sacrifice again of Jesus Christ. Literally eating the body and blood of Jesus Christ is a sacrifice

************************************************************************************************

 

You earlier denied {above} that The Eucharist was not a re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ but now you are arguing that is a sacrifice!

*****************************************************************************************************

 

Old Regular, it's not a re-sacrifice. It's the same once for all sacrifice repeated thousands of times each day throughout the world. See Malachi 1:11.

 

Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and all who believe in transubstantiation do re-sacrifice Jesus Christ each time they partake of the bread and wine. You are simply using semantics to make it sound more acceptable.

I see Malachi 1:11. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

But what does that have to do with the re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Scripture is talking about incense, and different incense each day. Jesus Christ has only one body and that body was sacrificed size=4]once[/size] for sin for all time!

Hebrews 9:11-14
11. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, [size]but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.[/size]
13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 9:23-10:10
23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
10:1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Jesus Christ had only one body. That body was the once for all time sacrifice for sin as shown in the above Scripture.

Of course the doctrine of transubstantiation is false doctrine. However, since certain people believe the bread and wine are the real body and blood of Jesus Christ they are, in their own mind, re-sacrificing the body of Jesus Christ innumerable times each day. Semantics will not change that.

Canon V below clearly states that the purpose of the Eucharist is the remission of sin. That means it is a re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ and even worse Canon I states that the divinity of Jesus Christ is in the bread and wine!

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

*********************************************************************************************

 

The operative words in Malachi 1:11 are "pure offering." Can anything but the body of Christ be truly pure? However, since you raised the matter of incense, do you use incense at your church? Why not?