The supposed impossibility of Holy Communion

[DeeJay]

I must say that I am impressed the amount of butchering people will go to just to deny the promises of Christ. Not a single person has been able to prove from the context of the Lord's Supper that Jesus did not really mean to say this is my body, etc. In fact, every single communion denier has had to go to other parts of Scripture that have absolutely nothing to do with Communion, i.e. Pr. Larry's appeal to the conversation with Nicodemus, in order to make their point. I have to wonder, why it is they can't make there point with the actual texts that speak to communion? Is it because they can't? DT and MB if I were you I'd hold them to these texts and not let them sidetrack the conversation.

People take a single verse and use it to prove their own belief. Even thought the Bible as a whole disproves what they are trying to make the verse say. When ever you try to show them that the entire bible disproves what they are saying they cry, just stick to the one verse.

For example, have you ever spoken to an LDS person. With one verse they make a pretty good case for 3 heavens, a spirit world, a prophecy about the book of mormon. And the big one Baptism for the dead.

Would you stick with the one verse they use and conclude that all of those things are true. Or would you examine the entire Bible to see if it fits?

 

[Pastor Larry]

You are correct that Christ was proceeding from metaphor to reality. He indeed starts off generally by saying He is the bread and we must come to Him and believe in Him, but then proceeds to specify the manner more realistically: He specifically identifies the bread with HIS FLESH, and specifically affirms that to come to Him one must EAT HIS FLESH and DRINK HIS BLOOD in order to have eternal life. (He gets even more literal and realistic in verse 54 stating one must "munch, or chew" (Gr."trogo") His flesh)

Yes, all meaning that we must believe in him. How much more simple does it get?

The ones who want to "gnosticize" Christ's meaning are the ones who are trying to change the text.

I absolutely agree.

No, they were truly to partake of His real flesh and blood, but in a 'spiritual' manner, not cannibalistically.

Yes, exactly.

And He clearly proceeded to expound that the "coming and believing" more specifically meant to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

No, you need to read the text again. It is the other way around. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood is explained by believing and coming.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I must say that I am impressed the amount of butchering people will go to just to deny the promises of Christ.

I share your amazement, but wonder why you participate in it.

Not a single person has been able to prove from the context of the Lord's Supper that Jesus did not really mean to say this is my body, etc.

I have not seen anyone say that Jesus did not really mean to say This is my body. He did mean to say that.

In fact, every single communion denier has had to go to other parts of Scripture that have absolutely nothing to do with Communion, i.e. Pr. Larry's appeal to the conversation with Nicodemus, in order to make their point. I have to wonder, why it is they can't make there point with the actual texts that speak to communion? Is it because they can't? DT and MB if I were you I'd hold them to these texts and not let them sidetrack the conversation.

Having dealt conclusively with every single text, it is clear that your side has the problems that cannot be dealt with.

You cannot explain why you do not take the text normally. You take a very unnatural reading of the text to support something that has no support elsewhere in Scripture. In fact, the rest of Scripture clearly supports my view, not yours.

I refer to Nicodemus to support the fact that unbelievers often misunderstand God’s word, not because the word isn’t clear, but because they are unbelievers. I did not need him to make the point about communion. In fact, if you go back and read, that point wasn’t even about communion, which makes me wonder if you even read thoughtfully.

The Gospel passages on communion most assuredly do not support any form of real presence. The text clearly tells us that it was bread and wine that was being used. You deny that, choosing to say it was “bread plus something” and “wine plus something.” You have no text to support you.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

People take a single verse and use it to prove their own belief. Even thought the Bible as a whole disproves what they are trying to make the verse say. When ever you try to show them that the entire bible disproves what they are saying they cry, just stick to the one verse.

For example, have you ever spoken to an LDS person. With one verse they make a pretty good case for 3 heavens, a spirit world, a prophecy about the book of mormon. And the big one Baptism for the dead.

Would you stick with the one verse they use and conclude that all of those things are true. Or would you examine the entire Bible to see if it fits?

Yes, you are right that many take a single verse and abuse it and I saw this abuse within the Baptist Church. But what separates the Baptist view of Holy Communion from Orthodoxy is that Orthodoxy has 2,000 years of Church Tradition (and I'm not speaking of tradition with a small 't'...there is a difference) backing them up. So not only does Orthodoxy have Scripture support, but also the writings of the Apostolic Church Fathers of the first Century.

St. Polycarp was a disciple of the beloved Apostle John. Did St. John teach Polycarp error who in returned taught both Ignatius and Irenaeus error, since both wrote of the Real Presence, especially when Christ promised the Holy Spirit would protect the Apostles from teaching error? Did Christ not commission the 12 to go out and make disciples and here John is teaching a heresy? Give me a break...

Clement of Rome was a student of both Peter and Paul and he also wrote of the Real Presence. So both Peter and Paul also were in error?

So who's right? 2,000 years of Church Tradition and a few hundred years of Baptist history?

The burden of proof is on you...you and your interpretation alone...and that ain't gonna cut it...

-

 

[Paul of Eugene]

In past debates it has been brought up by those who deny the Lord's Supper by claiming that because Jesus is 100% human, it is impossible for him to offer his body and blood in communion because it is physically impossible for the human body to be in numerous places at once and is a finite resource.

However, in the Gospels, Jesus is recorded doing the physically impossible by multiplying fish and bread in order to feed great numbers of people. With this in mind I must ask, "Why is it then impossible for Jesus to do the same with His body and blood in Holy Communion?"

Even withou invoking further miracle, the blood of Jesus contained millions of molecules of water, and some of those very molecules have been so distributed over the world by now that every time you drink a glass of water you are drinking some molecules that once flowed through the veins of Jesus. (But the same goes for molecules that flowed through the veins of Judas).

 

[BobRyan]

No, Christ said the bread of Life is Himself, and more specifically He says the bread He was about to give is HIS FLESH. (John 6:51)
So Christ does not answer the multitude's desire for more literal bread by saying: "Hey, the real bread is My 'WORD'." No, he specifically says the real bread is HIMSELF, more specifically HIS FLESH--the same FLESH He was about to give for the life of the world--which He stated they were to eat, and HIS BLOOD which He stated they were to drink, if they were to have eternal life.

Christ's words are NOT FUTURE tense as you have made them - but PAST tense and PRESENT tense when it comes to ALREADY BEING bread.

Here is the entire verse: "I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is...."
[/quote]

He identified with the bread that He was going to give them to eat.

Christ does not say "SOME DAY IN THE FUTURE I WILL become bread and THEN I WILL give you my flesh to eat".

Christ argues HE ALREADY CAME as BREAD and you must ALREADY eat of His flesh.

The FaithLESS disciples twist this symbolism of BREAD TOO literally

Indeed. They demonstrated this supposition by asking, "How can this be will he give us His flesh to eat?" (v.52).

Those faithLESS disciples are not the model for Christians today.

In Matthew 16 the disciples are condemned for taking the SYMBOL of bread TOO literally.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Then this verse is incorrect.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. - John 6:51

This is a promise from the scriptures. The verse says that any man who eats the bread SHALL live for ever.

You are telling me that is not true.

No. "As any fule no...", Scripture has to be placed in its proper context. I have given you the correct context for application of this Scripture (eg: I Cor 11), and this is the context in which the Church has consistently applied this verse form the get-go: baptised believers who have examined themselves prior to partaking. As Agnus Dei has pointed out, the Church has had no problem in applying this teaching in practice for the last 1900+ years (from the beginning, whether you read John 6, Ignatius*, Justin Martyr or any other of the ECFs, the Real Presence has been consistently taught), and I'm not sure why you're looking for a problem that ain't there

*Eg:[we] "break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death and the food that makes us live forever in Jesus Christ.”

 

[Chemnitz]

The Gospel passages on communion most assuredly do not support any form of real presence. The text clearly tells us that it was bread and wine that was being used. You deny that, choosing to say it was “bread plus something” and “wine plus something.” You have no text to support you.

"Take, eat; This is my body" (Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:19); "Take, drink; this is my blood"(Mt 26:27, Mk 22:24, Lk 22:20) is not support enough? If the words of Christ are not enough then you have more problems than I thought. We believe that the bread is there because scripture is plain on that point we also believe the body and blood are there because scripture is equally plain on that point also and until you can successfully prove from this text alone that Jesus is speaking figuratively you have no standing to accuse me of butchering the text.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Chemnitz: //We believe that the bread is there because scripture is plain on that point we also believe the body and blood are there because scripture is equally plain on that point also and until you can successfully prove from this text alone that Jesus is speaking figuratively you have no standing to accuse me of butchering the text.//

I agree the bread & wine are there,
I agree the body of Christ and the Blood of Christ
are there.

I disagree that "you can successfully prove
from this text alone that Jesus is speaking figuratively
you have no standing to accuse me of butchering the text"

Sorry, never does the Bible say directly that it is
speaking figuratively. Very infrequently does the
Bible say things that can be construed as suggesting
a figure-of-speach:

1. parables might be figures of speech
2. 'like' and 'as' frequently introduce figures of speech

The polysyndeton Greek 'kai' is a figure of speech
that helps us understand the prophecy of Christ
in Matthew chapters 24-25.

Normaly the text of the Bible doesn't say
"hey, I'm a figure of speech!" One (being Baptist)
has to figure it out for themselves (other strokes
for other folks)

 

[Chemnitz]

Ed, I am not really sure what you are trying to say?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Larry,
In response to your comment about it being a common rhetorical device to proceed from metaphor to reality, I said the following...

"You are correct that Christ was proceeding from metaphor to reality. He indeed starts off generally by saying He is the bread and we must come to Him and believe in Him, but then proceeds to specify the manner more realistically: He specifically identifies the bread with HIS FLESH, and specifically affirms that to come to Him one must EAT HIS FLESH and DRINK HIS BLOOD in order to have eternal life. (He gets even more literal and realistic in verse 54 stating one must "munch, or chew" (Gr."trogo") His flesh)

Then in response you said this...

Yes, all meaning that we must believe in him. How much more simple does it get?

And later this...

No, you need to read the text again. It is the other way around. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood is explained by believing and coming.

Actually, you are the one that needs to read the text again, since your spin on it seems to be making the exact opposite point to what you said earlier about proceeding from metaphor to reality. In other words, in your interpretive scheme, you have Christ proceeding from reality to metaphor. I'll demonstrate that's not the case--rather that Christ indeed is proceeding to reality.

Christ indeed starts off speaking metaphorically and generally (perhaps even vaguely) in saying He is the "bread of life" and that people must "come to" Him and "believe in" Him (v.45, 47) to have life. But what does it mean to "come to" Him and "believe in" Him? Afterall, John mentioned earlier in His gospel that many "believed in His Name", but that Christ didn't commit Himself to them (John 2:23-24). Proceeding, then, from the more general/metaphorical to the more concrete and realistic, Christ explains that by "coming to" Him and "believing in" Him, He more specifically means that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood--flesh that is food indeed, and blood that is drink indeed. And he becomes more specific in defining the bread as being HIS FLESH, the same flesh He was about to give for the life of the world.

Instead of correcting the murmuring multitudes when they wonder aloud how Christ could give them His flesh to eat (v.52) by saying (hypothetically)...
"No, no, no. You are thinking too literally. When I say the bread is My flesh, I'm really saying that the bread is a metaphor for my teaching, and that you must 'accept Me' as Lord and Saviour. That's how you "come to me," oh foolish men"...
...he rather becomes more concrete, specific and real by saying...
"Most assuredly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you. Whoever eats [lit, "munch, or chew"] My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in Him." (John 6:53-56)
So Christ never backs off on His claim that the bread He was to give is actually His flesh (the same that was to give for the life of the world-v.51), and that His flesh is truly food and His blood truly drink, by later stating that "eating His flesh" and "drinking His blood" were merely metaphors for something else all along.

It's interesting to note that when folks previously expressed misunderstanding at Christ's teaching, that He would correct them and explain the actual meaning. For instance, He corrected the disciples, when they thought the "leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" somehow referred to actual bread, by stating the leaven rather was their teaching. This, however, was not the case in John 6. This is the only recorded instance where we have disciples abandoning Jesus over His teaching. No one scratched their heads and murmured aloud about what Christ could have meant about being the "door", or the "vine", or the "living water" (or how they could have streams of water coming from inside of them). They did not question Him nor leave Him at these points, since they knew He was speaking metaphorically. Not so, with the discoure in John 6. He could have easily corrected them and said it was all just a metaphor for His 'teaching' and for "believing in" Him, but He never backed off His realistic language regarding His flesh and blood being real food and drink that must be eaten and drunk, only qualifying that they must seek to undertand spiritually (not 'metaphorically') rather than carnally.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Christ's words are NOT FUTURE tense as you have made them - but PAST tense and PRESENT tense when it comes to ALREADY BEING bread.

"Shall give" is FUTURE tense, Bob (don't you remember that from grammar :thumbs: )

"...And the bread that I shall give is My Flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." (John 6:51)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Jesus uses food and drink as illistrations and not literaly through out the NT. If you take this litteraly then what about the verses below.



Is there literal living water that you can put in a glass and drink? Or do you take this as a metaphore?

Perhaps you didn't notice one of my responses to your previous posts (see second post from the bottom of page 4), but I addressed the differences between metaphorical expressions such as Christ being the "door" or "vine" and the realistic language used of the Eucharist. I'll repost the relevent portion...

DT: The New Testament writers consistently use realistic language when describing the Holy Communion--the bread and wine are Christ's Body and Blood, He declares; his flesh and blood are food indeed and drink indeed; and we must eat and drink His flesh and blood if we want His life in us; the bread is the communion of (participation in) the body of Christ, and the cup is the communion of (participation in) the blood of Christ. The common rejoinder, of course, is that since Christ calls Himself "the vine" and "the door", and that He is speaking so metaphorically, we can simply dismiss the realistic language ascribed to the Eucharist as likewise being merely metaphorical. However, there are some problems with this, especially when one analyzes the difference between the "vine" and "door" language, and that used of Communion:

(1)Although Jesus says "I am the vine" and "I am the door", he never later points to a literal growing vine or a literal wooden door and says, "See that's Me.". With the Eucharist, Christ who earlier said that, not only was HE the bread of Life, but that (more specifically) His flesh was food indeed and His blood is drink indeed (and that we must eat and drink His flesh and blood to have life), later at the Last Supper specifically identifies His body and blood with the bread and the wine which we are to literally eat and drink.

(2)Although Paul specifically identified the bread and wine as the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ respectively, he never described or alluded to a similar ritual involving affixing oneself to vegetation or walking through a wooden door as somehow a "communion of (participation in)" Christ "the Vine", or Christ "the Door" respectively.

(3)Nowhere in Church history do we see any evidence of early Christians observing any ritual or ordinance involving the physical joining of themselves to literal vines or the physical walking through literal wooden doors, let alone that they interpreted Christ's words in these passages as anything other than metaphor. However, the same cannot be said of Holy Communion as the consensus taught that Christ's Body and Blood were truly present somehow in the literal bread and wine which they physically ate and drank. These early Christians, in other words, could distinguish between the metaphors of "the vine" and "the door" from the realism of the Eucharist.

In addition to that, I'll mention what I said to Larry--that no one is ever recorded in Scripture as having abandoned Christ over His statements regarding Him being "living water", "the door", or "the vine" (please see first post on page 8 above). Also, regarding the 'living water' reference specifically, Christ later on never did hold up a glass of water and say, "This is Me, the living water--drink this, all of you so rivers of life will gush forth from you"; nor did Paul mention a glass (or bucket) of water being the 'communion of the living water'; nor was there ever any ritual in the early church drinking water to join themselves to Christ in order to get rivers to come out them. The Scripture writers and the early Chrisians knew the difference.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Actually, you are the one that needs to read the text again, since your spin on it seems to be making the exact opposite point to what you said earlier about proceeding from metaphor to reality. In other words, in your interpretive scheme, you have Christ proceeding from reality to metaphor.

Please go back and read what I said. The metaphor is “I am the bread” along with the eating and drinking statements. The reality is “come” and “believe.”

But what does it mean to "come to" Him and "believe in" Him? … Christ explains that by "coming to" Him and "believing in" Him, He more specifically means that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood--flesh that is food indeed, and blood that is drink indeed. And he becomes more specific in defining the bread as being HIS FLESH, the same flesh He was about to give for the life of the world.

Wow … It is truly hard to imagine this is serious. You have it exactly backwards. Eating and drinking are explained by coming and believing. You are not saved because you “eat and drink” his literal (or real presence) body and blood. Scripture never teaches that. You are saved by coming or believing.

Instead of correcting the murmuring multitudes when they wonder aloud how Christ could give them His flesh to eat (v.52) by saying (hypothetically)...he rather becomes more concrete, specific and real by saying...
"Most assuredly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you. Whoever eats [lit, "munch, or chew"] My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in Him." (John 6:53-56)

And all of that must be understood in the context of Christ’s words in John 6, not the context of later writers. That is your mistake. You think Christ did not mean what he said. I think he did. And I think it is plain in the passage.

It's interesting to note that when folks previously expressed misunderstanding at Christ's teaching, that He would correct them and explain the actual meaning.

Not always. In fact, some of Christ’s words were designed to hide truth (cf. Matthew 13).

For instance, He corrected the disciples, when they thought the "leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" somehow referred to actual bread, by stating the leaven rather was their teaching. This, however, was not the case in John 6.

It was not the case because it was unnecessary. We see from Peter’s response that they understood this teaching was about “coming and believing:” “Lord to whom shall we go since you have the words of eternal life.” It was clear that they understood this to be about believing Jesus’ words, not about their dinner selection.

This is the only recorded instance where we have disciples abandoning Jesus over His teaching.

No it’s not. It happened with the twelve on the last evening before the crucifixion. It happened all through his ministry as the crowds got smaller and smaller.

You have made it pretty easy here to demonstrate the fallacies of your position. They are answered simply by looking at the text and taking Jesus at his word, rather than by reading into it some position of later writers. It is always better to take Jesus at his word.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

No it’s not. It happened with the twelve on the last evening before the crucifixion. It happened all through his ministry as the crowds got smaller and smaller.

Show us pastor all the other times that Christ lost disciples over a theological teaching.

The night of the crucifixion is not one, and it’s a very poor example. Is that what they taught you in Seminary? Christ being handed over to the Jewish authorities and His disciples running off is hardly a case of them leaving Christ due to His teaching.

So cite your references, Christ has to be making a theological statement and we need to see His disciples turning away.

Christ was in the Temple teaching in John 6…hence they often referred to Christ as a rabbi, which means? Teacher.

-

 

[DHK]

"Shall give" is FUTURE tense, Bob (don't you remember that from grammar :thumbs: )

"...And the bread that I shall give is My Flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." (John 6:51)

No it isn't DT. You are utterly confused. It is as much present as it is future. Even if you claim future, the "when" of shall is something that you are misinterpreting.

"If you pay the cashier she shall give you your groceries."
We use such constructs all the time.
There is no indication that the cashier is going to come and give you your groceries in the future when you are lying on your bed at death's door. She will give them to you immediately. just as Christ gives us eternal life the moment we believe on. For "whosoever believes on shall have eternal life--immediately.

Learn your grammar DT.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

"If you pay the cashier she shall give you your groceries."
We use such constructs all the time.
There is no indication that the cashier is going to come and give you your groceries in the future when you are lying on your bed at death's door. She will give them to you immediately. just as Christ gives us eternal life the moment we believe on. For "whosoever believes on shall have eternal life--immediately.

Learn your grammar DT.

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever! The mental gymnastics some people will go through…

Shall give is most certainly a future tense look it up on the net or any first grade English book…My 5 year-old is studying this…

The cashier will NOT give the groceries until she has been paid…a FUTURE action…Good grief!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall

Shall and will are both modal verbs in English primarily used to express the future.

-

 

[DHK]

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever! The mental gymnastics some people will go through…

Shall give is most certainly a future tense look it up on the net or any first grade English book…My 5 year-old is studying this…

The cashier will NOT give the groceries until she has been paid…a FUTURE action…Good grief!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall

Shall and will are both modal verbs in English primarily used to express the future.

-

That is true, at least somewhat. But the shall/will of the example given implies promise, duty and obligation. It does not imply an event that is far off into the future as others like to imply. When I believe I shall receive eternal life. That is an event that is instantaneous. It is far more instantaneous than "When I give the cashier her money she will give me my groceries," for Christ is God and not man.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

That is true, at least somewhat. But the shall/will of the example given implies promise, duty and obligation. It does not imply an event that is far off into the future as others like to imply. When I believe I shall receive eternal life. That is an event that is instantaneous. It is far more instantaneous than "When I give the cashier her money she will give me my groceries," for Christ is God and not man.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.

Then you agree that Christ is speaking in a future tense…He shall give up His flesh for the life of the world…Christ was speaking of His upcoming crucifixion a future action…

Unless I'm missing the conversation or you are, DT is speaking of John 6:51

-

 

[DHK]

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.

Then you agree that Christ is speaking in a future tense…He shall give up His flesh for the life of the world…Christ was speaking of His upcoming crucifixion a future action…

Unless I'm missing the conversation or you are, DT is speaking of John 6:51

-

No, that isn't the only thing that we was speaking of. The context was that there was a great crowd following him. Jesus told them that they were following him because he fed them, not because they believed on him. Then a little later he tells them:

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

The meaning is: That he is the living bread, that is in him alone is eternal life. If any man eat of this bread, that is believes on him, he shall have eternal life (right then and there). This is the same message that he consistently taught throughout the entire chapter. Believe and be saved. Believe on me and I shall give you eternal life. This is the meaning of this metaphor.

Again:
John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
--The eating and drinking is a show of faith. If you will believe in the coming sacrifice, that I will give my life for you, I will give you eternal life.

John 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
--He that believes on me shall have eternal life. The message is consistent--it is one of: salvation is by faith alone.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
--Some believed on him and some did not. Jesus knew which ones would believe. And he knew which one would betray him. He is omniscient. Belief brings eternal life.

John 6:68-69 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
--This is Simon Peter's great confession. He confessed that Christ was the Messiah, and only in him was eternal life. Peter had eternal life because he believed in Christ.

I can show you the same thing with even greater of ease by going through the first part of the chapter. The theme is the same. Salvation is by faith in Christ. Believe in him and you shall be saved. That was his message throughout.