Your view of the Lord's supper

[sola fide]

Which view of the Lord's supper do you hold to?

Zwinglian, Reformed, or Lutheran?

[II Paradox II]

Which view of the Lord's supper do you hold to?

Zwinglian, Reformed, or Lutheran?
Reformed, though I'm not generally hostile to the Lutheran view either...

ken

[seebs]

I don't hold to a view of it, because it's quite clear to me that any opinion I formed would be guesswork.

[Polycarp1]

You might consider defining Calvin's take on it -- I've read some on it but am still not sure how to explain it.

And you left off Real Presence, held by many Christians (including several groups of Protestants) who do not accept the implications of Luther's Consubstantiation hypothesis.

[sola fide]

You might consider defining Calvin's take on it -- I've read some on it but am still not sure how to explain it.

And you left off Real Presence, held by many Christians (including several groups of Protestants) who do not accept the implications of Luther's Consubstantiation hypothesis.
I don't think the "real presence" is typically an orthodox (especially evangelical) view, so I chose not to include it.

Calvin held to a view which was somewhat similar to Zwingli, it was a memorial, yet more than a memorial, because in Calvin's view Christ's presence is substantially with us during communion, albeit not His physical presence. Rather than Christ come down to us we ascend to Him by faith. You might say we receive a "taste of heaven". That is, it is a preview of things to come. Yet Christ's physical nature plays no role in the bread and wine.

Grace.

[Lotar]

I have yet to decide on the matter.

[Arikereba]

I would say that I believe in the Real Presence in a very undefined-to-me way. In some way, Christ is present in the bread and wine. I can't really accept the memorial view--the symbolism, for me, when I see it as something more, is just too rich. But I'm unwilling to define things any clearer than that. Some days I really like Calvin's view; some days I like the Lutheran view; I think that what I could subscribe to on most days is a belief in the Real Presence that doesn't necessarily imply consubstantiation.

[JVAC]

That is funny, 70 million Anglicans, 65 million Lutherans and still yet more moravians, (not sure about methodists) which are all "Protestant" and yet all hold to "Real Pressence". It would seem that it would be most orthodox.

Not only that but "Consubstantiation" is one theory of how Christ makes his "Real Presence". Your argument doesn't hold, because you included a "Real Presence" choice in the poll. You should, therefore, generalize it, or offer all theories of how the "real presence" is manifested to Christ's Church.

[sola fide]

That is funny, 70 million Anglicans, 65 million Lutherans and still yet more moravians, (not sure about methodists) which are all "Protestant" and yet all hold to "Real Pressence". It would seem that it would be most orthodox.

Not only that but "Consubstantiation" is one theory of how Christ makes his "Real Presence". Your argument doesn't hold, because you included a "Real Presence" choice in the poll. You should, therefore, generalize it, or offer all theories of how the "real presence" is manifested to Christ's Church.Do you believe that transubstantiation is an evangelical view of the Lord's supper? :confused: Notice I clarified the term orthodox by saying, "especially evangelical."

Grace.

[JVAC]

I believe it is a viable theory, and it cannot be disproven, nor proven, so it is worthy to remain a theory. We should not infringe upon a person's right to believe, something that is not taught expressly in Scripture, i.e., how Christ manifests himself to us. Whether Christ turns himself into bread, in a complicated manner, or a very simple manner, the important thing is the ends. That "real pressence" is maintained, that is to say, the process doesn't matter as much as what we do when we participate.

When we come to eat the body and drink the blood, that is our stress, that we do that, and not at what time or by what process it becomes the body and blood.

It is indeed evangelical, in the meaning of the word, for it is good news that Christ offers himself to us, and that when we do it we announce the death of Christ until he comes again 1Cor 11:26.

[Polycarp1]

Real Presence != Transubstantiation. The latter is Thomas Aquinas's theory, based on pseudo-Aristotelian Scholastic forms and categories, of how the Real Presence occurs. The former is a belief in Christ's actual presence in the bread and wine, which many choose not to try to define beyond accepting it as a divine mystery. And for you to say that it's not an orthodox doctrine, when it is the Orthodox doctrine, is less than candid. As JVAC notes, it's shared by Anglicans and Lutherans, and IIRC is the "official" doctrine of Methodism, though not "played up" in their theology.

[sola fide]

Again, to clarify my point- this is the P/R/E room, correct? I consider the P/R/E faith to be quite orthodox, i.e. correct. The most common P/R/E views of the Lord's supper are the views that I noted. Enough said.

Grace.

[JVAC]

No, I don't think you grasp it, "real pressence" is the most common P/R/E thought, says, 70 million Anglicans,65 Million Lutherans, Moravians, Methodists, there is only about 300 million P/R/E christians, the majority are Anglicans/Lutherans/Moravians/Methodists, that hold to "Real Presence".

Consubstantiation is one view, but "Real Presence" is not just consubstantiation. That is what we must note.

Real Presence is the most orthodox.



_________
added

simple math puts 135/300 agree to real presence not counting moravians and methodists

[sola fide]

Ok I'll give you the protestant part. But not the Reformed/Evangelical part:) .
Oh how the simplest of polls can spark debate:yawn: .

Grace.

[Lotar]

Ummm, you can't get more evangelical than Lutheran. It was the Evangelical church until the Evangelical/Reformed split.

[HiredGoon]

Was raised with Zwingli's view, but have been thinking more about it lately, and think Calvin may have been on to something. Guess you can call me undecided.

[Lotar]

I think Zwingli's view makes the most sense, but then I know that they simplest view isn't always the correct one. The Trinity doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that doesn't mean it's wrong and the unitarians are correct. I'm convinced that it is definately more than a symbol, but I'm not sure I subscribe to the real presence.

[Phoebe]

I hold to the Lutheran view, not necessarily consubstantiation. ;)

Christ is present in the Eucharist.

[Col]

I take what I believe is the biblical view. I beleive that Christ, as he did a lot, was using metaphor. Here he was at the last supper before his crucifixion sharing a meal with his disciples. Using bread and wine (two stapels at the time for survival) as a metaphor for His teaching, being that Jesus the Christ is the Good News and that to "survive" we must "live on his word". So as we gather we share bread and wine and remember to live by His word and are also reminded of the sacrifice of body and blood on the cross for our sins. Jesus wasn't saying that he was going to magically appear when we had communion because he doesn't have to, Jesus is with us always not just in a church building or at a ceremony. You don't have to pass a test, do a course or go to a specific location to meet Jesus. Jesus is here to meet you where you are.
I can't help but think that Jesus must worry that we have missed the point as we have, over the years, turned something simple and special into a huge production of which we appear to endlessly argue over semantics. I don't understand what is gained from complicating Christ's teaching. From what I understand of Jesus in the bible, I can't help but think that he would be more at home breaking bread and sharing wine at a humble gathering in a small Church or simple ceremony at someones home rather that at a huge church with all the pomp and ceremony that man has developed over the centuries.
I think it is disappointing that we seem to place more emphasis on "how" communion is cebrated, than "why", and therefore miss the message.

Bless Ya
Col :) <><

[Jason1646]

I think it is disappointing that we seem to place more emphasis on "how" communion is cebrated, than "why", and therefore miss the message.

Bless Ya
Col :) <><

Hey Col,

If Jesus is really present in the Lord's Supper, that does have serious implications as to 'why' we celebrate it, namely, to enjoy communion with our Lord!

That being said, we simply need to read 1 Corinthians 11 to get an idea as to why the manner in which we celebrate it becomes important. When the Corinthians approached it without the proper sobriety, they were guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. After all, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:16). :)

My $.02,

~Jason

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I take what I believe is the biblical view.

The rest of the views are Biblical as well, if they don't jive with your view it does not make them any less Biblical. That is an offensive statement to be sure.


I beleive that Christ, as he did a lot, was using metaphor. Here he was at the last supper before his crucifixion sharing a meal with his disciples. Using bread and wine (two stapels at the time for survival) as a metaphor for His teaching, being that Jesus the Christ is the Good News and that to "survive" we must "live on his word".

If he was using metaphow then why did he have them drink the wine and eat the bread? He stated this IS my body, this IS my blood. He spoke into reality. This is a valid view as well, and a more commonly accepted viewpoint.

So as we gather we share bread and wine and remember to live by His word and are also reminded of the sacrifice of body and blood on the cross for our sins. Jesus wasn't saying that he was going to magically appear when we had communion because he doesn't have to, Jesus is with us always not just in a church building or at a ceremony. You don't have to pass a test, do a course or go to a specific location to meet Jesus. Jesus is here to meet you where you are.

The body and blood is a specific thing, not just the presence of Christ. It is plain that where two or more are gathered then He is in the midst. The point of the Lord's Supper is something much different than jus tthe presence of Christ. Paul very clearly states that sharing the wine is sharing Christ's blood:


1 Corinthians 10: 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.


If we are sharing in the Body and Blood then what is to say we are only symbolically sharing? I believe fully in a Real Presence of Christ in the sacraments. I do not know where I stand on the mechanics of how it happens, but my view is Biblical as well.


I can't help but think that Jesus must worry that we have missed the point as we have, over the years, turned something simple and special into a huge production of which we appear to endlessly argue over semantics. I don't understand what is gained from complicating Christ's teaching. From what I understand of Jesus in the bible, I can't help but think that he would be more at home breaking bread and sharing wine at a humble gathering in a small Church or simple ceremony at someones home rather that at a huge church with all the pomp and ceremony that man has developed over the centuries.
I think it is disappointing that we seem to place more emphasis on "how" communion is cebrated, than "why", and therefore miss the message.


There is nothing wrong with debating the different beliefs on communion. Paul did not think of it as a simple ceremony in passing. He advised specific methods of observance and went so far as to say that you should be in the right frame of mind when you take, and then blamed the sick among the church on not being in the proper mindset when partaking of the Body and the Blood. He went even farther and said to make sure that you have eaten before church so that you are not consuming the sacraments to fill your hunger. This is not a simple ceremony and should not be presented as such. It is one of the most important things we can do as Christians, it is an act of obedience, a holy and mysterious thing. The emphasis in church should always be the why, but what is wrong with wondering and debating about the how? We desire to further our knowledge.

[racer]

If he was using metaphow then why did he have them drink the wine and eat the bread?

If Jesus meant that the bread and wine were truly flesh and blood, then why didn't he turn the bread and wine into flesh and blood? It was certainly within His power to do so?

He stated this IS my body, this IS my blood. He spoke into reality.

Notice, He said this is my body, this is my blood. He never said this is me. I can spill my own blood or tear off a limb, but my blood or a limb do not possess my spirit or soul . . .

Please clarify your point that "He spoke into reality."

The body and blood is a specific thing, not just the presence of Christ. It is plain that where two or more are gathered then He is in the midst. The point of the Lord's Supper is something much different than justhe presence of Christ. Paul very clearly states that sharing the wine is sharing Christ's blood:

Yes, but exactly what does "sharing Christ's blood" entail?

If we are sharing in the Body and Blood then what is to say we are only symbolically sharing?

Who says we are symbolically sharing? The act of sharing or communing is not symbolic. The bread and wine are symbols representing Christs body and blood, aka: spiritual nourishment.

I believe fully in a Real Presence of Christ in the sacraments.

Real Presence as in literal/physical presence or His spiritual presence?

I do not know where I stand on the mechanics of how it happens, but my view is Biblical as well.

Well, if a change truly does occur as in Transubstantiation, mechanics are not important. Christ performs miracles, none of which we can explain the mechanics. We just know He has the power to perform miracles. If you endorse a spiritual presence, change isn't really necessary, so mechanics are not a consideration.

There is nothing wrong with debating the different beliefs on communion. Paul did not think of it as a simple ceremony in passing. He advised specific methods of observance and went so far as to say that you should be in the right frame of mind when you take, and then blamed the sick among the church on not being in the proper mindset when partaking of the Body and the Blood. He went even farther and said to make sure that you have eaten before church so that you are not consuming the sacraments to fill your hunger. This is not a simple ceremony and should not be presented as such. It is one of the most important things we can do as Christians, it is an act of obedience, a holy and mysterious thing. The emphasis in church should always be the why, but what is wrong with wondering and debating about the how? We desire to further our knowledge.

First, I don't think the debating is about "why." That's pretty simple. We are commanded to do so in "remembrance of Me." That's the why. And I think that's what is important, that we obey a command given directly from Christ. He said "do this," and that command did not say that part of "doing this" was believing in any type of mystery. Please explain what in Christ's command alludes to a "mysterious thing."

Second, just because someone holds the the symbolic/memoriam view does not mean they believe that "communion" is a "simple ceremony." It's a very deep and spiritual thing.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

If Jesus meant that the bread and wine were truly flesh and blood, then why didn't he turn the bread and wine into flesh and blood? It was certainly within His power to do so?
...
Notice, He said this is my body, this is my blood. He never said this is me. I can spill my own blood or tear off a limb, but my blood or a limb do not possess my spirit or soul . . .

Please clarify your point that "He spoke into reality."

Spoke into reality, this is a simple statement. When he said this is My Body this is My blood then it became so. He is there. The sacrements are the body and blood. If you deny that then you deny what Jesus himself said. He did not say this represents my body and this represents my blood, He said this IS. This is speaking it into existence. It is really very simple, if he said it is then it is. I am not one to doubt Christ's very words or the meaning of them. The language that he spoke in has plenty of words that would have meant something else, he chose not to use them, he chose to use the words that meant it IS[.


Yes, but exactly what does "sharing Christ's blood" entail?

Since the Greek has words that would have ment to symbolicly partake, and Paul chose to use the words he did we can assume that he meant exactly what he wrote, and that is that we share in Christ's blood when we partake of the wine. This does not mean that this is some sybolism, it is Christ's blood.


Real Presence as in literal/physical presence or His spiritual presence?

Again, the langauge is the key. This is the very real manifestation of Christ. We partake of His Body and His Blood. It is a literal presence. The lanhaunge in the scriptures makes this clear if you study it out.


Well, if a change truly does occur as in Transubstantiation, mechanics are not important. Christ performs miracles, none of which we can explain the mechanics. We just know He has the power to perform miracles. If you endorse a spiritual presence, change isn't really necessary, so mechanics are not a consideration.
I subscribe a real, literal presence. The mechanics are not important, but they are fun to debate.


First, I don't think the debating is about "why." That's pretty simple. We are commanded to do so in "remembrance of Me." That's the why. And I think that's what is important, that we obey a command given directly from Christ. He said "do this," and that command did not say that part of "doing this" was believing in any type of mystery. Please explain what in Christ's command alludes to a "mysterious thing."
It is a mysterious thing. This is the only thing Paul blames sickness in the church on, and futhermore goes into detail about eating first so you are in the right mindest. The mechanics are mysterious, how does the Real Presence take place. Why is this the one thing that sickness is blamed on? There are many other question that could be asked as well. It is mysterious as we cannot define or describe the manifestations that communion imparts to us. You will probably take that the wrong way, if you do I will explain.


Second, just because someone holds the the symbolic/memoriam view does not mean they believe that "communion" is a "simple ceremony." It's a very deep and spiritual thing.
This sort of ceremony should have as much import as needed to impart the seriousness of taking communion. The idea that Christ would be more comfortable in a small church with little ceremony may well be right, but you seem to running down those churches that use ceremony to impart the importance of this act of obedience and that is not right at all.

[theseed]

What is Calvin's view, if not a memorial? Because it is a work.

[Arikereba]

I think it's a little bit of a straw man argument to say that those who believe in the Real Presence think you can't meet Jesus anywhere, at any time. I do think that Jesus is there everywhere, and all the time, but too often I let myself see nothing but slush and sirens and stone buildings--and to be forced to step out of that, on a Sunday morning when I really should be doing my homework, is a great thing. Church usually makes me do that. But all the more so on the weeks we take communion.

I don't have anything but my own experience to go on, here. But I think that taking communion, for me, is something that makes Jesus' sacrifice on the cross something more than words. It's taking that out into my own life. But precisely because of that, it's not something I can easily describe in words. Talk is cheap. C.S. Lewis said something that starts to get at it, for me--we are not pure spiritual beings. We have the natures of animals. And doing sometimes has a psychological impact much greater than saying does. I think that's what creates the psychological difference, for me, between eating bread and wine and thinking about Jesus, versus eating bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus--even if not in a completely literal sense. It makes me humble and nourished and peaceful (how can I think of hurting anyone if I believe I have a piece of Jesus in me?).

I am pragmatic enough that if I can't decide what is True, and I can't decide what is better, I'll go with what works for me.

[Col]

Oh come on flesh99, give me a break. How can you say that I am being offensive. The OP asked for anyones communion view (not just your view). I gave my view. I used the word biblical not as a provocative or inciteful statement, simply that I align myself more with what is in the bible than Jesus said and did, rather that what has evolved from it with man's interpretation.
I am not trying to change anyones mind or make people think like me. I am only faithfully stating what I feel. I think you need to be less literal and judgemental when you read posts. You seem to be unsure of what a metaphor is and have misinterpretated my use of word simple to decribe communion, as if I mean it is insignificant. On the contrary I feel it is very significant, and I personally approach it with reverence and awe, my point was that it was once an uncluttered and clear expression of devotion and reflection, which has evolved into a complicated ceremony which can overshadow the act itself. If you had read and understood my post you would have seen I explained why I tend to have this view. I thought I explained quite simply that by using the word biblical I was meaning what Jesus had said and done as recorded in the bible, as opposed to what man has created since. This is not to say the man's evolved interpretation is wrong, it may well be inspired and led by the Holy Spirit, it is not for me to say. I was simply replying to the OP with my view on communion. I am not inviting a debate.

Bless Ya
Col :)<><

[Lotar]

What is this complicated ceremony, that I am so often hearing about?

[Polycarp1]

I think it's a little bit of a straw man argument to say that those who believe in the Real Presence think you can't meet Jesus anywhere, at any time. I do think that Jesus is there everywhere, and all the time, but too often I let myself see nothing but slush and sirens and stone buildings--and to be forced to step out of that, on a Sunday morning when I really should be doing my homework, is a great thing. Church usually makes me do that. But all the more so on the weeks we take communion.

I don't have anything but my own experience to go on, here. But I think that taking communion, for me, is something that makes Jesus' sacrifice on the cross something more than words. It's taking that out into my own life. But precisely because of that, it's not something I can easily describe in words. Talk is cheap. C.S. Lewis said something that starts to get at it, for me--we are not pure spiritual beings. We have the natures of animals. And doing sometimes has a psychological impact much greater than saying does. I think that's what creates the psychological difference, for me, between eating bread and wine and thinking about Jesus, versus eating bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus--even if not in a completely literal sense. It makes me humble and nourished and peaceful (how can I think of hurting anyone if I believe I have a piece of Jesus in me?).

I am pragmatic enough that if I can't decide what is True, and I can't decide what is better, I'll go with what works for me.An outstandingly good series of points.

My son and grandkids live 700 miles away. Now I can write to them at any time, I can telephone them long distance, and sometimes they have access to the Internet and we could exchange e-mails or go on AIM. But there's nothing like being there, seeing the grin on his face when we're sharing a joke or reminiscing about good times -- seeing the kids' faces light up when I show up, and feeling them hug me. They're present to me in memory, by mail, by phone, by the Internet, right now -- but there's nothing like being physically with them. In the words of the old popular song, "Ain't nothing like the Real Thing, baby!" :)

To me that's a piece of the difference between communion and the sense of Christ's omnipresence at all times. In being everywhere, He's seemingly nowhere in particular -- but He's present in a very real way in the communion elements, and I'm a participant in the Last Supper all over again, with all the rest of the Communion of Saints.

Second, it often seems like Christians seem to think that God made a big mistake in equipping us with physical bodies at all. The Sacraments serve to say that God is with us in everything, that He cleanses and nourishes us physically as He does spiritually, that He knew what He was doing in making this world and putting us in it.

[racer]

Spoke into reality, this is a simple statement. When he said this is My Body this is My blood then it became so. He is there.

According to whom or what? What is the basis for the argument that just because Jesus said "this is my body/blood" that even though there is no outward change--a change does occur? What about His spirit? Why didn't He say, "This is me?" or why didn't He say, "This is my body . . . this is my blood . . . this is my spirit?"

The sacrements are the body and blood.

How do you substantiate that claim?

If you deny that then you deny what Jesus himself said.

No. What I deny is what you say Jesus said.

He did not say this represents my body and this represents my blood, He said this IS.

Here's a quick English lesson. There are metaphors, then there are similies. Metaphors do not require indicative words such as like, as or "represents." I don't know if you saw my analogy of a picture. If I have a photo of myself and hold it up, saying, "This is me," the picture is not really me, it is a representation of me.

This is speaking it into existence.

What is the basis or foundation for this argument? Can you cite examples of other instances when Christ employed the same technique?

It is really very simple, if he said it is then it is.

Then why was there no visible change?

I am not one to doubt Christ's very words or the meaning of them.

What you are not doubting is your rendering of what Christ said.

Since the Greek has words that would have ment to symbolicly partake, and Paul chose to use the words he did we can assume that he meant exactly what he wrote, and that is that we share in Christ's blood when we partake of the wine. This does not mean that this is some sybolism, it is Christ's blood.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda . . . the best we can do is speculate why Paul chose specific words. That is no basis for stating "claims" as "facts." Did John use the same language in his Gospel?

Again, the langauge is the key. This is the very real manifestation of Christ. We partake of His Body and His Blood. It is a literal presence. The lanhaunge in the scriptures makes this clear if you study it out.

You're dodging. ;) Do you support transubstantiation or consubstantiation?

I subscribe a real, literal presence. The mechanics are not important, but they are fun to debate.

What's to debate in regards to Christ's ability to perform miracles?

It is a mysterious thing.

Only if you insist that the elements truly change into the Body and Blood of Christ. Then, if that is indeed the case, then the explanation is simple, the change is manifested by the power of God. No mystery.

This is the only thing Paul blames sickness in the church on, and futhermore goes into detail about eating first so you are in the right mindest.

So, that dictates that we must believe in a literal, physical transformation of the elements? I don't follow your logic.

The mechanics are mysterious, how does the Real Presence take place. Why is this the one thing that sickness is blamed on? There are many other question that could be asked as well. It is mysterious as we cannot define or describe the manifestations that communion imparts to us.

It's only mysterious because you claim that a change occurs that can not be proven or verified.

You will probably take that the wrong way, if you do I will explain.

If by wrong way you mean that I may be offended, don't worry--I'm not. ;) However, please do explain if you can.

This sort of ceremony should have as much import as needed to impart the seriousness of taking communion.

Why is it only important or serious if we believe in the Real Presence?

The idea that Christ would be more comfortable in a small church with little ceremony may well be right, but you seem to running down those churches that use ceremony to impart the importance of this act of obedience and that is not right at all.

I'm lost. :scratch: Where did I imply that Christ would be more comfortable in a small church with little ceremony? That has not be the direction of my argument at all. I just don't understand why you insist that there is only "ceremony" if one believes in the Real Presence. Why does symbollism rule our or negate the seriousness or the importance of communion?

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was belittling or demeaning churches that hold to a literal manifestation of Christ during communion. I didn't mean to.

God Bless!!

:angel:

[JVAC]

Here's a quick English lesson. There are metaphors, then there are similies. Metaphors do not require indicative words such as like, as or "represents." I don't know if you saw my analogy of a picture. If I have a photo of myself and hold it up, saying, "This is me," the picture is not really me, it is a representation of me.
Just here keeping us on topic, Jesus didn't speak to his disciples and Apostles in English, I think it is not only manditory but wise to do all lessons in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Koine Greek. Lets not translate the translations!!!!!

[racer]

Just here keeping us on topic, Jesus didn't speak to his disciples and Apostles in English, I think it is not only manditory but wise to do all lessons in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Koine Greek.

So, then, for us English speaking Christians, we're just taking a stab in the dark. We can't trust anything we read in Scripture? :rolleyes:

I'm sorry but I don't know Aramaic, Hebrew, or Koine Greek, and I think God in His infinite wisdom, probably planned ahead for that. Or else, He didn't plan on us English speaking peoples to be Christians.

Lets not translate the translations!!!!!

Who's translating the translations? You're the one making more of what He said than am I. :)

[WesleyJohn]

.

[racer]

* Racer read's WesleyJohn's post
:scratch:

* Racer read's it again

:scratch:

* Racer gives up trying to discern what in particular confuses WesleyJohn

;)

[Lotar]

I'm sorry but I don't know Aramaic, Hebrew, or Koine Greek, and I think God in His infinite wisdom, probably planned ahead for that. Or else, He didn't plan on us English speaking peoples to be Christians.


Sorry, but that deserves a :rolleyes:

Come on now, you have to see that is not a logical arguement. The original languages cannot be translated perfectly into English, especially when they have multiple words for something we only have one for.

[JVAC]

So, then, for us English speaking Christians, we're just taking a stab in the dark. We can't trust anything we read in Scripture? :rolleyes:

I'm sorry but I don't know Aramaic, Hebrew, or Koine Greek, and I think God in His infinite wisdom, probably planned ahead for that. Or else, He didn't plan on us English speaking peoples to be Christians.



Who's translating the translations? You're the one making more of what He said than am I. :)
As a student of language, I have noted that languages are very different. Not only in wording and word order, but in the meanings of words, and how they are placed, and why they are placed.

In English we have certain writting conventions we take fourteen years of schooling to learn. Then we go on to advanced learning where we learn even more. The same is true in other languages. We cannot assume that the way we do things in English is the same way they do things in that language. That is like going to Japan and walking in to a house with shoes on, whereas here it would be fine, but there it is an insult. Customs and traditions function the same as writing styles and idioms, we cannot assume that our English way of writting and reading holds fast to another culture, especially one as ancient and far off as 70 AD (again I say CE is stupid) in the city of Antioch or the like.

This is why we have pastors and such, so they can research the culture and context of the texts and explain them better to us. We are able to grasp simple concepts, but when it comes to Real PResence and Trinitarian theology we are at a loss. It's not that God doesn't want you to understand it is just that to understand you need to give God's word much more time and thought.

Reading the English Bible is great! However, when we come to think of that is how it was written with that intended message we are leading ourselves astray. We must always keep researching context, tradition and culture to truly understand the message of the Evangelists and Paul, Peter, James and Jude (John is considered an Evangelist).

[WesleyJohn]

.

[racer]

Wesley,

I'm glad to know what confuses you. Afraid I can't help you out much, but perhaps you feel better now that you've gotten that off your chest? :)

Maybe later, I'll address some of the issues that confuse you, perhaps give you a better idea regarding my beliefs.

[racer]

Sorry, but that deserves a :rolleyes:

Okay . . . . if you say so.

Come on now, you have to see that is not a logical arguement. The original languages cannot be translated perfectly into English, especially when they have multiple words for something we only have one for.

So, then we English speaking Christians who know no other languages are fumbling in the dark, and must look to those multilingual Christians to explain why Scripture doesn't mean what it says? :confused:

[JVAC]

Racer:

Can you reply to #35, I think I drew out Lotar's point, (I don't want to misrepresent anyone so Lotar if it doesn't, just push me aside).

Thanks,

-James

[racer]

Racer:

Can you reply to #35, I think I drew out Lotar's point, (I don't want to misrepresent anyone so Lotar if it doesn't, just push me aside).

Thanks,

-James

James,

I'm gittin' thar, I'm gittin' thar. I bin bizzy. :P

[JVAC]

Ok, take your time, I just thought that Lotar and I had the same point. I just am over active on my day off, I should take this time and get caught up on all that reading, but this is so very interesting.

[racer]

As a student of language, I have noted that languages are very different. Not only in wording and word order, but in the meanings of words, and how they are placed, and why they are placed.

Okay.

In English we have certain writting conventions we take fourteen years of schooling to learn. Then we go on to advanced learning where we learn even more. The same is true in other languages. We cannot assume that the way we do things in English is the same way they do things in that language. That is like going to Japan and walking in to a house with shoes on, whereas here it would be fine, but there it is an insult. Customs and traditions function the same as writing styles and idioms, we cannot assume that our English way of writting and reading holds fast to another culture, especially one as ancient and far off as 70 AD (again I say CE is stupid) in the city of Antioch or the like.

You are how old? Waaayyyy too smart for your age.

This is why we have pastors and such, so they can research the culture and context of the texts and explain them better to us. We are able to grasp simple concepts, but when it comes to Real PResence and Trinitarian theology we are at a loss. It's not that God doesn't want you to understand it is just that to understand you need to give God's word much more time and thought.

Okay.

Reading the English Bible is great! However, when we come to think of that is how it was written with that intended message we are leading ourselves astray. We must always keep researching context, tradition and culture to truly understand the message of the Evangelists and Paul, Peter, James and Jude (John is considered an Evangelist).

James, I really don't know how exactly to respond to your argument above. Clearly I am not a student of language, while you are quite knowledgeable on the subject. But, you are arguing based upon the use of the Greek word which translated into the word "is" in our English Bible. Fine, I can't even begin to debate with you on that issue. So, I'm not even going to try to continue in that direction.

I do appreciate the information you are sharing with me. However, I'm going to approach the discussion form another direction. While you are focusing on the fact Christ said, "This is my body/blood," I'm focusing on what Christ is saying the bread is. He says, " . . . this is my body" and "this is my blood." He doesn't say, "This is me," nor does He mention His "spirit." Now, giving your above argument validity, that the Greek word, which is now translated into "is," excludes metaphorical or symbollic meaning, if Christ had said, "This is me," then your argument would be more convincing. But, by limiting the identification of the "bread and wine" to only His "Body and Blood," without mention of His spirit or soul, indicates to me (at least) that He is not saying that the "bread and wine" become Him--The Real Presence.

Where does the theology that His spirit is also present come from? What is the basis for that?

[JVAC]

But, by limiting the identification of the "bread and wine" to only His "Body and Blood," without mention of His spirit or soul, indicates to me (at least) that He is not saying that the "bread and wine" become Him--The Real Presence. This is a very interesting concept and what I percieve to be the beef of your argument. So, lets see if I can play with it some.

In Old Testament times there was a rule set down, "Don't drink of the blood of another animal, it is the life force". By giving us His blood to drink we are getting that life force that will give us eternal life. That is how we know that St. John the Evangelist tells us the truth when he says 6:56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him."

Now we mustn't confuse 'life force' with 'soul'! Life force is something we all have ((even animals)), it is the thing that vivifies us daily, whereas the soul is what seperates us apart from other animals. No other animal was given a Neshama, in Genesis 2:7 we learned that not until God breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life did he come alive. Neshama is one word for soul, we have it translated as breath but it is more than that; it is the soul.

Given two differences, 'life force' and 'soul' we can see how we might be vivified eternally by Jesus, the Christ of God. Through drinking his life force, blood, we remain in him and he in us. Hallelujah for this gift.

I hope this answered your question further.

-James

[Lotar]

So, then we English speaking Christians who know no other languages are fumbling in the dark, and must look to those multilingual Christians to explain why Scripture doesn't mean what it says? :confused:
No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that when looking into matters such as these, you cannot say take the english translation as completely accurate. In many cases, such as this, the original language has multiple words where we only have one, and in these cases we can get a better insight into what is meant in the original languages. Like in this case, we can tell if Jesus is speaking figuratively or litterally.

[racer]

This is a very interesting concept and what I percieve to be the beef of your argument. So, lets see if I can play with it some.

In Old Testament times there was a rule set down, "Don't drink of the blood of another animal, it is the life force". By giving us His blood to drink we are getting that life force that will give us eternal life. That is how we know that St. John the Evangelist tells us the truth when he says 6:56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him."

Now we mustn't confuse 'life force' with 'soul'! Life force is something we all have ((even animals)), it is the thing that vivifies us daily, whereas the soul is what seperates us apart from other animals. No other animal was given a Neshama, in Genesis 2:7 we learned that not until God breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life did he come alive. Neshama is one word for soul, we have it translated as breath but it is more than that; it is the soul.

Given two differences, 'life force' and 'soul' we can see how we might be vivified eternally by Jesus, the Christ of God. Through drinking his life force, blood, we remain in him and he in us. Hallelujah for this gift.

I hope this answered your question further.

-James

James,

I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten you. I've been involved with a discussion via e-mail with Skripper on Peter as the Rock. His recent reply to me was very loonnnngggg. Anyway, I've also been consulting with the Bible concordance at Blue Letter Bible dot Com regarding the different uses of the verb "is." So, we'll be able to discuss this a little more in depth. Just be patient with me, please . . . . . :pink: