The supposed impossibility of Holy Communion

[Eliyahu]

I am the True Vine, then can we find the vine which is Jesus Christ? Should we worship the vine?

I am the Door, where is the door?

Lamb of God, should we worship the lamb?

If Jesus gave a flesh, which part of His body was taken and given to the disciples?

Didn't Jesus offer the perfect Body at the Cross? or did Jesus offer His body, parts of which were amputated ?

This argument is also related to the ignorance of the truth that what Jesus meant by His Flesh and Blood at the Last Supper was indicating the Blood and Death at the Cross.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

Really?? Please tell me you aren't serious.

Jesus taught that he was going to die for the sins of the world. And when it happened, his disciples left.

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

Why?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Really?? Please tell me you aren't serious.

Jesus taught that he was going to die for the sins of the world. And when it happened, his disciples left.

Nope, you're wrong pastor...what seminary did you go too?

It's wasn't Jesus's teaching that He was to die that drove His disciples away. If that were the case His disciples would've left long before He was betrayed, b/c He talked about His death often.

In addition, Christ's disciples leaving Him during His passion was hardly a case of theological disagreement pastor.

Now, you said that all through Jesus's ministry the crowds got smaller and smaller, so please cite references to support your theory. I want to see verses were disciples left Him over a theological disagreement as that of John 6.

-

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Opening Statement:

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?"

GE:

Jesus sacrificed Himself - not only His blood and body, but His LIFE, in dying for our sins.
But then Jesus "ROSE from the dead", HIMSELF, "AGAIN", "for our justification"!
THIS, was the 'OFFERING' of Himself, "First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD" -- the 'Offer', of HIMSELF, in body, blood -- in LIFE!
This is what we 'feast' when 'feasting' - "eating and drinking of Sabbaths' Feast", the Lord's Supper.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It's wasn't Jesus's teaching that He was to die that drove His disciples away. If that were the case His disciples would've left long before He was betrayed, b/c He talked about His death often.

No he didn't talk about it often. He didn't talk about it at all until the last 18 months or so. And then, it was veiled and they didn't understand it. They didn't accept that he was going to die, and when he did, they all fled.

In addition, Christ's disciples leaving Him during His passion was hardly a case of theological disagreement pastor.

Perhaps we have a different understanding of theology. By your definition, John 6 wasn't a theological disagreement.

Now, you said that all through Jesus's ministry the crowds got smaller and smaller, so please cite references to support your theory. I want to see verses were disciples left Him over a theological disagreement as that of John 6.

Yes, early in his ministry, the people marvelled at his teaching because he taught as one that had authority, not as the scribes and pharisees. He had such great crowds to follow him that he could not hardly move at times, and try to get away from them. In John 6, we see him driving people off with his teaching. He does the same thing with statements like "If you don't hate your father and mothers and wife and children and own lives also you cannot be my disciples. He is weeding people out.

I think what we are seeing here is the dearth of actual Scripture in your theological tradition. You have much tradition and you repeat it here. But you have very little actual knowledge of Scripture it seems. That's unfortunate, particularly in a discussion about Scripture, when you are trying to "take the upper hand."

 

[bound]

Pastor Larry,

I don't wish to join this debate but I am concerned with my own studies of this and I would like you to help me out since you are a 'Pastor'.

As you may know there is a great deal of historical evidence which suggests that the early Church interpreted these passages of the Gospel of John counter to the Baptist Exegesis. I don't see 'any' evidence of a Baptist Exegesis in the early Church writings but I do see Cyprian, Tertullian, Origen, Clement, Hippolytus, etc offering an interpretation of these passages which counter our own.

Are we to simply conclude that everyone of these early Christian authors to be in error? If such is to be our conclusion why do we agree with the Trinity, Canon of the Bible etc. I mean if these early Christian authors were wrong about such a major thing as the Lord's Supper how can we assume that they are right about any of these other issues?

I am not trying to argue with you Pastor I'm just asking because I have issues with such teachings as the Trinity and I'm wondering why we take Athaniasus' Exegesis and that of the later Council of Nicea as ours if they were so wrong about other matters?

I hope you can clear this up for me. Thank you.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Jesus compared Himself to a stone of stumbling. Paul says the Gospel must offend people if the true Gospel. I side with Pastor Larry, if I understand the issue right.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Pastor Larry,

I don't wish to join this debate but I am concerned with my own studies of this and I would like you to help me out since you are a 'Pastor'.

As you may know there is a great deal of historical evidence which suggests that the early Church interpreted these passages of the Gospel of John counter to the Baptist Exegesis. I don't see 'any' evidence of a Baptist Exegesis in the early Church writings but I do see Cyprian, Tertullian, Origen, Clement, Hippolytus, etc offering an interpretation of these passages which counter our own.

Are we to simply conclude that everyone of these early Christian authors to be in error? If such is to be our conclusion why do we agree with the Trinity, Canon of the Bible etc. I mean if these early Christian authors were wrong about such a major thing as the Lord's Supper how can we assume that they are right about any of these other issues?

I am not trying to argue with you Pastor I'm just asking because I have issues with such teachings as the Trinity and I'm wondering why we take Athaniasus' Exegesis and that of the later Council of Nicea as ours if they were so wrong about other matters?

I hope you can clear this up for me. Thank you.

GE:

I think you are pretending. In other words, I doubt your honesty. Don't ask me why I feel so, it's because it just feels so!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here's why!, "I don't wish to join this debate but I am concerned .... I am not trying to argue with you Pastor I'm just asking because I have issues ....". It says it all.

 

[Pastor Larry]

As you may know there is a great deal of historical evidence which suggests that the early Church interpreted these passages of the Gospel of John counter to the Baptist Exegesis.... Are we to simply conclude that everyone of these early Christian authors to be in error?

Yes.

If such is to be our conclusion why do we agree with the Trinity, Canon of the Bible etc. I mean if these early Christian authors were wrong about such a major thing as the Lord's Supper how can we assume that they are right about any of these other issues?

We don't "agree with them" about the Trinity or the Canon, or such. We agree with the Bible. The fact that they agree with the Bible means we believe the same thing.

But the Bible is the standard, not church father's. They were not inspired and inerrant as Scripture is.

BTW, think about the irony of this argument: People say we can't understand Scripture because it was so long ago so we need to read the church father's to help us understand.

How does that help? The church father's are almost as old as Scripture, and without the promise of God concerning inspiration and truth.

I am not trying to argue with you Pastor I'm just asking because I have issues with such teachings as the Trinity and I'm wondering why we take Athaniasus' Exegesis and that of the later Council of Nicea as ours if they were so wrong about other matters?

We "take their teaching" where it conforms to Scripture. We reject their teaching where it fails to conform to Scripture.

Too many people treat the church fathers as if they were apostles. Yet we know that even in the first century of the church during hte life time of Paul, John, Peter, etc. there was already false teaching that had to be corrected. It should not surprise that later centuries had the same thing.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The doctrine of the Trinity offends you; to you it's a stumbling block. It might have been the odour of life unto life otherwise.

You have decided beforehand, now make it not look presumptuous.

 

[bound]

We don't "agree with them" about the Trinity or the Canon, or such. We agree with the Bible. The fact that they agree with the Bible means we believe the same thing.

Wouldn't agreeing on Canon proceed agreeing with the Bible?


The Canon 'frames' a great deal of our presuppositions on Christ, the Trinity etc. As I've studied the history of the Christianity, and found many in the racks of the Saitns to be Pseudo-Platonists or worse, I've found myself questioning doctrines like the Trinity. In fact, I'm having a hard time separating Pseudo and Neo-Platonist philosophy from the Apostles Paul and John not-to-mention Origen, Clement, Athaniasus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, etc.

As it all begins to unravel I begin to entertain alternatives such as Messianic Judaism, Judaism and even, God-Forbid, Islam for hints of an more authentic Semitic Exegesis.

Perhaps my name should be 'unBound' because my doubts of the authenticity of Christianity has grown not because I know less but because I know more.

Pastor, where did you go to seminary? Have you tackled these questions to satisfaction outside of simply ignoring them?

Again thank you for the help. I need it. :tonofbricks:

 

[BobRyan]

Pastor Larry,

I don't wish to join this debate but I am concerned with my own studies of this and I would like you to help me out since you are a 'Pastor'.

As you may know there is a great deal of historical evidence which suggests that the early Church interpreted these passages of the Gospel of John counter to the Baptist Exegesis. I don't see 'any' evidence of a Baptist Exegesis in the early Church writings but I do see Cyprian, Tertullian, Origen, Clement, Hippolytus, etc offering an interpretation of these passages which counter our own.

To the contrary. Even the RCC admits that the early mass was not structured and the very earliest known - contains no formula for transubstantiation or anyhing of the kind.

In 1 Cor 11 we see one of the most detailed accounts of actual first century "practice and teaching" on what they thought they were doing during communion. The RC view of transubstantiation is missing.

Further in Heb 10 it is very clear that this becomes a "once for all time sacrifice - not a continual sacrifice.

Paul said in Acts 20 that "after my departure grevious wolves will come in" leading the church astray. Paul told Timothy that they would bring in "doctrines of demons".

In fact Timothy was stationed at Ephesus JUST for that reason alone!! 1 Tim 1:3

Titus was also charged with stamping out the fires of doctrinal error already kindled in the church!

Are we to simply conclude that everyone of these early Christian authors to be in error? If such is to be our conclusion why do we agree with the Trinity, Canon of the Bible etc. I mean if these early Christian authors were wrong about such a major thing as the Lord's Supper how can we assume that they are right about any of these other issues?

In Mark 7:4-9 Christ chargesthe leaders of the ONE TRUE nation church started by God with serious doctrinal error. Yet the OT text comes to from THEM!

Is it your argument that the Jewish church must be nfallible OR we must toss out SCRIPTURE??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"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)

I agree that in all the PAST TENSE examples we find in John 6 of Christ ALREADY being bread that ALREADY came down from heaven and those around him ALREADY needing to EAT his flesh we DO have the ONE example of a FUTURE application of that symbol in vs 51.

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 past and present tense use you seek to ignore: "I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;


How convenient that you turn a blind eye to the majority of the text in order to recast ALL OF IT as a statement about a future event.

Your delimma results from the truth Christ taught us in Matt 16 about NOT taking the symbol of bread "TOO LITERALLY".

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread.
6 And Jesus said to them, ""Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, ""He said that because we did not bring any bread.''
8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "" You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread?
9 ""Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 ""Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Here we see Christ refer to the SAME example of feeding the people as in John 6 where the people came to Christ seeking literal food AFTER the feeding of the 5000. Christ rebukes the disciples mistake here of taking the symbol of bread TOO literally as did the “faithLESS” disciples of John 6.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Consistently Christ begins to focus the people on that which is needed to obtain Eternal Life. All of the “eating” and/or “drinking” He speaks of is directed to the singular goal – that of obtaining Eternal Life!


30 So they said to Him, "" What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?
31 "" Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, " HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.'''
32 Jesus then said to them, ""Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
33 ""For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.''
[/quote]
Again Jesus directs them AWAY from the literal bread – and says that the LESSON of the manna is the real secret to Eternal life. Eating literal bread, literal manna only gains you a day’s worth of benefit – but if you learn the LESSON of the manna (the one that God gave) you get Eternal life. Deut 8:3 “Man does not live by bread alone – but by Every Word that comes from the MOUTH of God”. His teaching, His Word is set as “the key” to life. This is “already true” at the time He is speaking.

Christ points out "He WHO EATS my FLESH HAS eternal life" – presently. HE does not argue that “in the future when someone eats my literal flesh they will then get eternal life” That “in the future eat my flesh” concept is not in the chapter.

John has established the context for Christ coming down out of heaven – as the WORD that became FLESH.

John 1: 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.


So in John 6 the theme continues

John 6

33 ""For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven[/b], and gives life to the world.''
34 Then they said to Him, ""Lord, always give us this bread.''
35 Jesus said to them, "" I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

Focus is on “coming to Christ” and “Believing in Him” already not waiting for some future day to do it. (Still no mention of biting Him yet). And “all agree” that even THEN right then and there the faithful follower was under obligation to come to Christ AND believe His word – Already. Already the “Word that became FLESH” was there and must already be accepted.

36 ""But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
...
40 ""For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.''

Again the focus is on Believing Christ's Words - not "biting Christ". Christ argues that it is ALREADY the case that He is ALREADY the bread of life – God’s people must ALREADY be coming to Him they must ALREADY be believing in Him.

The only Future component is the eternal life and resurrection – not the biting, not the believing not the coming to Christ.

How in the world can someone look at each of these details and conclude "I am still tempted to ignore them all and believe something else anyway"??

 

[BobRyan]

The Literal Act of Believing – is what brings literal Eternal Life.

47 ""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

48 "" I am the bread of life.
49 "" Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 ""This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51 "" I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.''
[/quote]

Not "I WILL BE the Bread Life that one way WILL come down out of heaven" - but "I AM" and I CAME down out of heaven!!

Now Christ is getting to an illustration least suited to the already grumbling faithLESS error-prone over-literal disciples. He says He Already IS the bread that Came down out of heaven and it is Already true that if "anyone Eats (presently) of this Bread (bread already here) He will Live Forever” (the goal of all this is Life eternal). The EATING is for the goal of "Living Forever".

Time for all faithFul Catholics to "bite Christ" if they were using today’s Catholic doctrinal position.

 

[bound]

To the contrary. Even the RCC admits that the early mass was not structured and the very earliest known - contains no formula for transubstantiation or anyhing of the kind.

In 1 Cor 11 we see one of the most detailed accounts of actual first century "practice and teaching" on what they thought they were doing during communion. The RC view of transubstantiation is missing.

BobRyan, I'm not talking about 'transubstantiation' nor am I talking about the RCC (those are your issues not mine).

When I read, for example, Cyprian's Treatise IV On the Lord's Prayer I witness a very clear teaching on communion...

Before, He says, that whoever shall eat of His bread shall live for ever; as it is manifest that those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living, so, on the other hand, we must fear and pray lest any one who, being withheld from communion, is separate from Christ's body should remain at a distance from salvation; as He Himself threatens, and says, "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you."[48]

This predates the Councils, the division of the Oriental Churches, the division of the Eastern and Western Churches and the later labeling of 'any' Roman Catholic Church. The Church in Cyprian's day was simply 'the Universal Church'. But his teachings are more in common with the ancient Liturgical Churches (Eastern, Oriental Orthodox Churches and 'yes' similar to Roman Catholic teaching on the subject of Communion. It was, at the very least, not thought of as a 'symbol' but the very 'life' of the Christian.

I don't have to point out that Cyprian also held to regenerative Baptism as well. Yet another 'error' from our Baptist Exegesis. My point is I don't see any example of our unique Baptist Exegesis in the early History of Christianity. That concerns me because I would like to have evidence, outside of rhetorical posturing, that we are interpreting these passages correctly.

Is it your argument that the Jewish church must be infallible OR we must toss out SCRIPTURE??

Once again myopic concern for 'all things Roman Catholic' blind you to the fact that I am speaking about the New Testament Canon. The Old Testament really doesn't concern me at this point because it is in the particular books of the New Testament that we create all of our presuppositions for Christ, the Trinity etc.

There is a very big world out there and it's not neatly divided between Baptists and Roman Catholics. That might have been the case for the Western Church but we have a wealth of other Christians we must incorporate into our studies to be objective.

 

[BobRyan]

52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, ""How can this man give us His flesh to eat?''

The FaithLESS listeners take Christ Literally and so they think only in terms of cannibalism and they complain about cannibalism - obviously thinking that literally eating literal human flesh is how Christ wants them to obtain "eternal life".

The faithLESS disciples take it as does the RCC today. Perfect harmony – but Would all the faithful RC members today have rushed over to take a “bite out of Christ” at that moment? We can only imagine. If the faithFULL disciples did that in John 6 – the gospel would have ended right then and there.

53 So Jesus said to them, ""Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
54 ""He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55 ""For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.


Christ does not say "Someday" you will have to My literal Flesh - but "HE WHO EATS My Flesh..HAS eternal life" - time to start biting - in fact it appears it is PAST time for already there is the distinction between those who HAVE eternal life and those who have it not, (those who had already bitten Him as the literal view insists?). Ahh the “details” of the text and what happens when we stop to “notice them”. How many errors are left aside.

56 ""He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

In John 15 Christ explains this as "MY Word abiding In You". And there too he argues that you must ALREADY be abiding in Christ – His Word ALRADY abiding in his followers IF they are to be alive eternally. For the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us – the Word believed – the Word accepted (not “the Messiah Bit” as the faithLESS disciples were supposing ).

Why ignore these inconvenient details to believe in false man-made traditions "anyway" - inspite of what we find here?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said -
In 1 Cor 11 we see one of the most detailed accounts of actual first century "practice and teaching" on what they thought they were doing during communion. The RC view of transubstantiation is missing.

Bounds
BobRyan, I'm not talking about 'transubstantiation' nor am I talking about the RCC (those are your issues not mine).

When I read, for example, Cyprian's Treatise IV On the Lord's Prayer I witness a very clear teaching on communion...

Before, He says, that whoever shall eat of His bread shall live for ever; as it is manifest that those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living, so, on the other hand, we must fear and pray lest any one who, being withheld from communion, is separate from Christ's body should remain at a distance from salvation; as He Himself threatens, and says, "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you."[48]

The argument from that quote is of the form "partake of communion and stay saved - be denied physical access to communion and become lost"

Are you really arguing that Church discipline that would deny participation for some - is in fact causing them to lose salvation??

If so - I have not been addressing that point at all.

However in quoting 1Tim 1:3 and in my reference to Titus I do SHOW that the fires of error were ALREADY raging during the first century - your supposition that error can not be creeping into the 2nd and 3rd century writings does not hold.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

Wouldn't agreeing on Canon proceed agreeing with the Bible?

No. The Bible is right whether it is in canonized form or not.

The Canon 'frames' a great deal of our presuppositions on Christ, the Trinity etc.

No it doesn't. The canon issue really doesn't even address this.

As I've studied the history of the Christianity, and found many in the racks of the Saitns to be Pseudo-Platonists or worse, I've found myself questioning doctrines like the Trinity. In fact, I'm having a hard time separating Pseudo and Neo-Platonist philosophy from the Apostles Paul and John not-to-mention Origen, Clement, Athaniasus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, etc.

It sounds like your hard time is with Scripture, not with the Trinity or other doctrines.

Perhaps my name should be 'unBound' because my doubts of the authenticity of Christianity has grown not because I know less but because I know more.

Have you questioned whether or not you actually know more? Or at least more of what should be known? I am unconvinced that "knowing more" would lead us to deny truth.

Pastor, where did you go to seminary? Have you tackled these questions to satisfaction outside of simply ignoring them?

On the public internet, I don't answer personal questions. I have however tackled these issues head on. I have not ignored them in the least. In fact, I continue to study them.

I would question whether or not deepening true knowledge would lead us away from Christ. Jesus said he was the truth, the life, the way. He preauthenticated the NT Scripture written by the apostles in John 15 when he spoke of the Spirit leading them in what they would say. So I think there are answers to your concerns.