This do in in remembrance

[Kerux]

I feel I am chilled.

"If your understanding of what I think is that Christians should agree on everything, then it is very clear that you have completely misunderstood my entire message.

Okay, you don't think Christians should agree on everything.

Should we not discuss controversial issues?

Is Biblical truth knowable?

Does truth contradict itself?

If truth doesn't contradict itself, can two contradictory views be correct?

If truth doesn't contradict itself and two people hold conradictory views, doesn't by definition, one of them have to be in error?

More to the point:

If one teaches the bread and the wine is literally changed into the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ, and the other teaches the bread and wine are only symbolical, they can't both be truth can they?

They can't be both be right.

It's one or the other (or some other n option).

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

Did everyone understand the allegory when he said to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Quite the opposite, they took him very literally and called him on it.

Whoa, there my friend. When Jesus mentions himself as being the Good Shepherd, the shepherd metaphor was much more easily understood by the listeners. They lived in a land of sheep and shepherds and may have been shepherds themselves. And they most likely had Psalm 23 memorized.

John 6:

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Now, when Christ mentions eating his flesh and drinking his blood, those were completely abstract terms to the listeners. Drinking blood was strictly forbidden and eating human flesh was not exactly a common practice in those days either. So Jesus says "the words I have spoken to you are spirit...." In contrast to physical or flesh.

Nicodemus had the same problem with being born again. "Can a man, being born, enter his mother's womb a seccond time, and be born?"

How did Jesus answer? That which is born of the flesh is flesh, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

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

More on this point:

John 6:

30 So they asked him, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" 32 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34 "Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread." 35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."

"He who comes to me will never hunger."

I don't know about you, but I came to Jesus Christ in 1975. And yet, I get hungry every day, (and have a 'slight' wealth pouch to prove that I have never gone hungry for very long).

But really, was Christ saying that anyone who comes to Him will never be physically hungry again?

Ditto with physically thirsty.

He was talking about spiritual hunger and thirst.

Wasnt He?

[Byblos]

I feel I am chilled.

Cool.

"If your understanding of what I think is that Christians should agree on everything, then it is very clear that you have completely misunderstood my entire message.

Okay, you don't think Christians should agree on everything.

Should we not discuss controversial issues?

Is Biblical truth knowable?

Does truth contradict itself?

If truth doesn't contradict itself, can two contradictory views be correct?

If truth doesn't contradict itself and two people hold conradictory views, doesn't by definition, one of them have to be in error?

More to the point:

If one teaches the bread and the wine is literally changed into the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ, and the other teaches the bread and wine are only symbolical, they can't both be truth can they?

They can't be both be right.

It's one or the other (or some other n option).

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

Or some other n option is more like it. That means if I'm wrong it doesn't necessarily make you right. The converse is also true.

Did everyone understand the allegory when he said to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Quite the opposite, they took him very literally and called him on it.

Whoa, there my friend. When Jesus mentions himself as being the Good Shepherd, the shepherd metaphor was much more easily understood by the listeners. They lived in a land of sheep and shepherds and may have been shepherds themselves. And they most likely had Psalm 23 memorized.

Well forgive me for not taking your word for it now. The way I read it, no one questioned him for calling himself the vine or the shepherd. They certainly did question him repeatedly when he said his flesh is food indeed. The text says nothing of what was easy or hard to understand at the time. It says they believed him literally and he didn't bother to correct them, repeatedly.

John 6:

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Now, when Christ mentions eating his flesh and drinking his blood, those were completely abstract terms to the listeners. Drinking blood was strictly forbidden and eating human flesh was not exactly a common practice in those days either. So Jesus says "the words I have spoken to you are spirit...." In contrast to physical or flesh.

Exactly why they did take him literally, precisely because those were hard teachings. I'm glad you mentioned John 60-63. The way I read it, in no way does it contradict the literal meaning of his words. In fact, it is a continuation of. In 63 he says 'The Spirit gives life'. He's talking about his own resurrection when he's raised in flesh and in spirit. Here's a quote from the article on the subject:

I'm talking about verse 63. If the disciples had just proceeded to take the flesh off the body of Christ right there and drink His blood, they would have done nothing supernaturally beneficial. Jesus is saying, "It's the Spirit that gives life," and so wait until the Spirit is given. When I breath my spirit upon the Cross. When the Spirit comes down at Pentecost, but especially when the spirit of Christ raises the body of Christ from the dead, it will be the Holy Spirit that makes Christ's flesh and blood holy, glorious and powerful as food for our souls and bodies. Not just the flesh alone.

"And the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." What words? That you've got to eat my flesh and drink my blood, those words. So we can't just say, "Well, the words themselves are all we need;" because if the words alone are all we take, we're disobeying the words themselves. Did you catch that? I used to always say to these Catholics in Bible studies, "Look at verse 63. It's the words of Christ that give life." The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. That's right, but what are those words? If you just simply take the words without the Eucharist, you're disobeying the words because the words say, "Eat my flesh and drink my blood." And it's because of the Holy Spirit that we receive life in that flesh and now it all comes together. There's no either/or; there's a both/and.

In 63 we discover why Christ's flesh and blood will be so powerful and animating for supernatural life. Verse 66, "After this, many of His disciples drew back...." We get the impression that the vast majority of them said, "This is just too much." "...and no longer went about with him. And Jesus turned to the twelve;" he didn't apologize. He didn't say, "Now that we're down to twelve, I'll tell you what I really meant." He didn't say that at all. In fact he is perfectly willing for this obstacle to remain scandalous even to the twelve. "Do you also wish to go away. Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go?'" Almost implying we would leave if there was somebody else that we could trust more than you because what you said is rather baffling. But he says, "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God."

Nicodemus had the same problem with being born again. "Can a man, being born, enter his mother's womb a seccond time, and be born?"

How did Jesus answer? That which is born of the flesh is flesh, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

And what is your point? The Eucharist is the perfect combination of flesh and spirit. It is the new unbloody sacrifice by which we worship and have fellowship with our Lord God. It is the new covenant that connects us with Jesus spiritually as well as physically. Is it necessary for salvation? Of course not. But it did put an end to bloody sacrifice and gave us a new way to worship our Lord. Incidently (a point made in the article as well), in Egyptian times, in addition to sacrificing a perfect lamb (no broken bones) and spraying its blood on the door, what did one have to do to stay alive? That's right, they had to EAT the lamb. If they didn't eat the lamb they'd be as good as dead. The new covenant didn't abolish sacrifice altogether; it merely changed it into an unbloody one. Jesus Christ died and was resurrected at Calvary once and for all. The Holy Spirit makes him available to us thru transubstantiation. That is what we believe.

In Christ,

Byblos.

[Canuckster1127]

FYI.

We do have an article on Transubstantiation on the main board.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/eucharist.html

I tend to agree with what it says and appreciate the spirit of it as well.

It's an important issue and wothy of close attention. I don't beleive it is a cardinal issue however.

[Kerux]

Okay, Christ is at the last supper with his disciples. He picks up the bread and says, 'This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remember of me."

Now, was he holding in his hand his body? A part of his body?

Just answer the question. It's either yes, he is holding in his hand his body. Or no, he is not holding in his hand his body or a part thereof.

[Kerux]

It is the new unbloody sacrifice by which we worship and have fellowship with our Lord God.

"New unbloody sacrifice?"

Show us one verse where God says by this 'new unbloody sacrifce' we come to Him in worship.

The entire 10th Chaper of Hebrews refutes the idea of a new sacrifice, bloody or otherwise.

That is what we believe.

No matter what?

If yes, than let's just call it good. I'm not here to convince those that are already convinced. There may be those who are not so convinced. That are still open to learning what Scripture may teach.

We put out our views, provide Scriptural backing for our understanding and it is the responsiblity of others to "search the Scriptures for whether these things are so."

[Canuckster1127]

Okay, Christ is at the last supper with his disciples. He picks up the bread and says, 'This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remember of me."

Now, was he holding in his hand his body? A part of his body?

Just answer the question. It's either yes, he is holding in his hand his body. Or no, he is not holding in his hand his body or a part thereof.

No he wasn't.

What does a painting 1,500 hundred years after the fact have to do with that?

[Byblos]

Okay, Christ is at the last supper with his disciples. He picks up the bread and says, 'This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remember of me."

Now, was he holding in his hand his body? A part of his body?

Just answer the question. It's either yes, he is holding in his hand his body. Or no, he is not holding in his hand his body or a part thereof.

Kerux, you do not appear to have read my post. First I will ask again, are you putting limitations on Jesus as to what he can or cannot do? But to answer your question, no he was not holding his body at the last supper in the upper room. The reason is that he was already physically right there with them; he was also waiting for the spirit to give life; he was waiting for his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection to complete the new covenant. When 'it is finished' then and only then could we partake of the unbloody sacrifice of the Pascal lamb. I tell you I would much rather be in the presence of Christ and partake of just bread and wine. In the absence of that, I'll take him at his word and 'do this in memeory' of him until he comes again.

Additionally, are you familiar with the passover liturgy, Kerux, and the 4 cups of wine? Are you aware that the last supper in the upper room started as a passover celebration but was not consummated? Jesus never drank the fourth cup of wine (notice the spelling ) in the upper room, the fourth cup being the climax of the passover liturgy. In fact after the third cup, he says he shall never drink of the fruit of the vine until he is in the kingdom of God. Why do you think that is? Do you think Jesus totally screwed up passover? Then on the cross, when he's about to give up the spirit, what does he say? 'I thirst'. What was he given? Some sour vinegar (fruit of the vine, or the fourth cup, or the consummation of the passover meal). He drank from it then said 'it is finished'. Now there's quite a few explanations or interpretations of what the 'it' is that was finished, including the traditional views of fulfilling all OT laws and so on. One of those laws was bloody, animal sacrifice. It is finished. We no longer have to kill animals to worship God. We don't have to do anything for that matter. But if we're inclined to stay close to God and his Son Jesus Christ then we can certainly use the new covenant as it was established by Christ himself in the upper room and completed on the cross.

In Christ,

Byblos.

[Byblos]

It is the new unbloody sacrifice by which we worship and have fellowship with our Lord God.

"New unbloody sacrifice?"

Show us one verse where God says by this 'new unbloody sacrifce' we come to Him in worship.

The entire 10th Chaper of Hebrews refutes the idea of a new sacrifice, bloody or otherwise.

I disagree and I believe I've shown why.

That is what we believe.

No matter what?

No matter what.

If yes, than let's just call it good. I'm not here to convince those that are already convinced. There may be those who are not so convinced. That are still open to learning what Scripture may teach.

We put out our views, provide Scriptural backing for our understanding and it is the responsiblity of others to "search the Scriptures for whether these things are so."

I agree totally.

Kerux, we happen to disagree on the issue of transubstantiation but I suspect we have many things in common, Christ and what he means to us being the most important, the rest is all academic.

God Bless,

Byblos.