On Communion

[jasonc]

That's your dust.
God can forgive all.

Wondering

That isn't that now. That is even an issue.when one prays,fasts,become cynical in if it will ever happen.it's not a place that full of oh just read and believe or simple things.I'm not dismissing that but showing how I have done a lot .prayed,then that same hour or night went right to it.

 

[Jim Parker]

Can't communion be the same? Can't it be both? Understood in a spiritual way which is very beautiful, but also in a literal way, which is what I get by reading John?

Why can't it be both??

Excellent point.

God created the universe but He can't make the bread and wine into his body and blood?????

 

[Deborah13]

Funny thing is . I don't over think the communion elements. Until this thread I seldom gave how rich the meanings in Judaism it has.I know that peshac is tied in.but not like I just saw it.communion is so much more then peshac

Do you see anything in the peshac that is even close to this idea of literally drinking the blood of the sacrifice?
I don't, in fact I see quite the opposite.
I agree that communion is so much more then peshac but to me that is because He is the real sacrifice for sin.

 

[GodsGrace]

That isn't that now. That is even an issue.when one prays,fasts,become cynical in if it will ever happen.it's not a place that full of oh just read and believe or simple things.I'm not dismissing that but showing how I have done a lot .prayed,then that same hour or night went right to it.

This is my point. We've all done the same. What's the difference? Some for one thing, some for another.
Let the one among you without sin throw the first stone.
The crowd went away. NO ONE is without sin.
Do you know what I mean by "will"?
I "will" never to be upset with my husband again.
But within two days, I'm upset with him.
It's the dust jasonc. it falls. Don't let it discourage you.
The Law kills
But grace gives life.

Wondering

 

[Jim Parker]

Do you see anything in the peshac that is even close to this idea of literally drinking the blood of the sacrifice?

Drinking the blood is forbidden by the Law of Moses.

Lev 17:10-12 (NKJV) And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood.

Deu 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life; you may not eat the life with the meat.

And at Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

As compared with: Jhn 6:53-4 Then Jesus said to them, “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 My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life,"

So we are not to eat the "life blood" of animals but we are to eat the "eternal life blood" of Christ in order to have His eternal life in us. hmmmmmmm.

iakov the fool

 

[jasonc]

Do you see anything in the peshac that is even close to this idea of literally drinking the blood of the sacrifice?
I don't, in fact I see quite the opposite.
I agree that communion is so much more then peshac but to me that is because He is the real sacrifice for sin.

Yes,they drank the whine, I believe that is representative of the blood of the passover lamb.a reminder of the command and how obedience saved them.the torah is like that.indirect and points to Jesus but a shadow is never as great as the light whom cast it.

 

[jasonc]

This is my point. We've all done the same. What's the difference? Some for one thing, some for another.
Let the one among you without sin throw the first stone.
The crowd went away. NO ONE is without sin.
Do you know what I mean by "will"?
I "will" never to be upset with my husband again.
But within two days, I'm upset with him.
It's the dust jasonc. it falls. Don't let it discourage you.
The Law kills
But grace gives life.

Wondering

This is beyond that.I will not lie to God.when I haven't the power nor desire to quit. An addiction isn't like that. I hate it,but I must have it.I know it's bad but I can't stop.

 

[childeye]

g

Childeye,

You can say you disagree, but you surely cannot say you agree with Ignatius!

That would depend upon one's interpretation of what Ignatius is saying. It could be said I am in disagreement with someone else's interpretation of what Ignatius meant.

You're directing me to "who are the THEY". It doesn't matter who "they" are for this discussion. It matters what they believe.

Yes, it matters what they believe, so that it can be understood what Ignatius is talking about in context. And he said, that they don't confess Jesus ever had a flesh body, and so we know clearly that this is what they believe. "not confessing that He was truly possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him," Hence they abstain from Eucharist (thanksgiving) because they don't discern his body in the Eucharist, because they don't believe he ever possessed a body..

Didn't Jesus fleshly die on the cross? It surely wasn't symbolic.

I have never said that Jesus' death on the cross was symbolic. The Eucharist is a remembrance of his fleshly dying on the cross, just as Jesus clearly said. Therefore, the Eucharist it is a sacrament. The term 'sacrament' means, the sign (symbol) of something sacred. Same with the word "Ephod". You are not supposed to worship the ephod, because it shows that you don't recognize the significance of what it is pointing to.

Was He not raised again in the flesh? He ate with the disciples. Thomas put his finger in a wound. Jesus walked with two disciples to Emmaus. He ate with them too.

Yes, Indeed he was raised in the flesh according to scripture and the Gospel. But the Eucharist shows his death. That is the significance of it. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Ignatius is plainly saying that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior. it just doesn't sound symbolic.

I know what you mean. But In context, he is saying, that for these people who do not confess that Jesus ever truly had a body, they are abstaining from any Eucharist (thanksgiving) because they do not confess that the Eucharist is his body. In other words, there can be no thanksgiving for what Jesus is sacrificing, if you don't believe he ever had a body. It's understandable how "the Eucharist is his body" could be read to mean that it turns into a piece of his flesh, and this is the food of eternal life. But it's superstition to me.

For Jesus said, "This is my body which will be given for you". And it is clear to me that Jesus is talking about his death upon the cross, that had not come yet when he said it. So Jesus is not saying that he just turned this bread into his flesh that will then die on the cross as some vehemently claim. He's saying, that he is sacrificing himself for us. That is an important distinction. One shows reverence and empathy, and the other, doesn't even perceive the significance of the event. So what I'm saying, is that what Ignatius is saying, is being misinterpreted. The Eucharist is his body in the same sense that Jesus meant it to be perceived, in remembrance of him. To think that Ignatius is saying that those who believe Jesus came in the flesh and sacrificed himself for us because of his undying Love, abstain from thanksgiving because they don't believe the Bread and wine literally turns into his body and blood, is error.

Now the apostle Paul clearly says "it shows his death", and that of course is a past event when he says it. And that statement agrees with what Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me". Now if the Eucharist is not symbolic of his suffering and death, then what else is it? It is condemnation unto all who partake of it unworthily. There is judgment at the cup.

 

[Deborah13]

Yes,they drank the whine, I believe that is representative of the blood of the passover lamb.a reminder of the command and how obedience saved them.the torah is like that.indirect and points to Jesus but a shadow is never as great as the light whom cast it.

I agree that it may have been, although I can't give a clear scripture for evidence.

Yes, it matters what they believe, so that it can be understood what Ignatius is talking about in context. And he said, that they don't confess Jesus ever had a flesh body, and so we know clearly that this is what they believe. "not confessing that He was truly possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him," Hence they abstain from Eucharist (thanksgiving) because they don't discern his body in the Eucharist, because they don't believe he ever possessed a body..

 

[childeye]

Hi Childeye,

You say:
The issue of Christ being "fully human" vs. "fully divine" is an argument of semantics.

It's both. Jesus was fully God and fully man.

I agree. It's therefore a false dichotomy, which is why I don't give any credence to those who would use it for innuendo.

Can't communion be the same? Can't it be both? Understood in a spiritual way which is very beautiful, but also in a literal way, which is what I get by reading John?

Why can't it be both??

One of the problems for me, is that history shows that there was a political contention over who had the authority to turn the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. After all, if the bread that gives life is the Eucharist, then whoever had the authority to turn the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus, also had the power to hand out eternal life. It raises the question of where is the true Church? Persecutions, torture, war and death were the product of these divisions.

Another problem is that I just don't believe things because I'm told to. The Holy Spirit has never convicted me of this. And I have never read anything in the bible, nor have I ever heard it preached in the Gospel, anything at all about the bread and wine turning into the body and blood of the Christ.

What if there's supposed to be judgment at the cup? What does it mean to eat unworthily, not discerning the Lord's body? What does discern imply in that sentence? In context it seems to at least include showing the proper reverence for the occasion. If so, then this reverence cannot be faked, nor can it be the product of any voluntary effort. It must be through the power of the cross that one's heart is moved to kneel before God. Paul said this in 1 Corinthians 11:19, For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Consequently, it seems to me that Jesus intentionally offended those in John 6:26. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled". Clearly, their intentions were carnal, and self serving. How does a billionaire determine who loves him sincerely, and who loves him for his money?

 

[childeye]

Semantics? Really?

The full deity and full humanity of Christ is the foundation of Christianity.
Christ is at once both God and Man.
It is God who became man without ceasing to be God.
The man Jesus of Nazareth is fully God without ceasing to be man.
Without the full deity and full humanity of Christ, the atonement is rendered ineffective for salvation.
This is basic, essential, Christian doctrine.

It is hardly just an argument of semantics.

Iakov the fool

I agree that Jesus is both at once fully man and fully God. But since you had mentioned this particular subject as reason to justify dismissing what Clement of Alexandria had to say about communion, I felt it appropriate to point out that the subject of whether Clement denied that he was fully human is arguing semantics. Jesus is the Christ and God is Love. Every division within that core belief is arguing semantics.

 

[Jim Parker]

he subject of whether Clement denied that he was fully human is arguing semantics.

Clement wasn't arguing semantics; he was arguing theology. He had a heretical view of the hypostatic union of God and man in Jesus which resulted in his heretical views on the Eucharist.

iakov the fool

 

[childeye]

Clement wasn't arguing semantics; he was arguing theology. He had a heretical view of the hypostatic union of God and man in Jesus which resulted in his heretical views on the Eucharist.

iakov the fool

It is difficult to evaluate what you claim, without any actual quotes provided of what he said that you would consider heretical. There are other early writings from other sources such as Origen and Augustine that speak of it being symbolic. I already quoted Tertullian.

 

[Deborah13]

Clement wasn't arguing semantics; he was arguing theology. He had a heretical view of the hypostatic union of God and man in Jesus which resulted in his heretical views on the Eucharist.

iakov the fool

Augustine (354-430) says Christ's words in John 6 about his body and blood are figurative. "If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."--(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Please post a quote from Clement showing that he did not believe that Jesus did not come in the flesh. Thanks.

 

[Jim Parker]

It is difficult to evaluate what you claim, without any actual quotes provided of what he said that you would consider heretical.

It's all readily available on line. Thank goodness we don't have to spend hours and hours at the library any more!

 

[Deborah13]

It's all readily available on line. Thank goodness we don't have to spend hours and hours at the library any more!

Usually if one makes a statement they are the one who provides the source of their information. Thanks.

 

[Jim Parker]

Augustine (354-430) says Christ's words in John 6 about his body and blood are figurative. "If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."--(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Please post a quote from Clement showing that he did not believe that Jesus did not come in the flesh. Thanks.

Here's what Augustine preached about the Eucharist:

“Augustine on the nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist” Sermon 272,

What you see on God's altar, you've already observed during the night that has now ended. But you've heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood. ..... So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?" My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. ...

 

[Jim Parker]

Usually if one makes a statement they are the one who provides the source of their information. Thanks.

Here ya go:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Clement_of_Alexandria

"Clement has also been accused of Docetism in his teachings on the Incarnation. According to him, the body of Christ was not subject to human needs. See the following passage from Stromateis which clearly denies Christ's full humanity:

In regard to the Savior, however, it were ridiculous to suppose that the body demanded, as a body, the necessary aids for its maintenance. For He ate, note for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power, but lest those in His company might happen to think otherwise of Him, just as afterwards some did certainly supposed that He had appeared as a mere phantasm. He was in general dispassionate; and no movement of feeling penetrated Him, whether pleasure or pain." 2

2. Jurgens, William A., The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1. Collegeville, MN:The Liturgical Press, pg. 184. Copyright 1970, The Order of Saint Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, MN. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN 0-8146-0432-3.

 

[GodsGrace]

That would depend upon one's interpretation of what Ignatius is saying. It could be said I am in disagreement with someone else's interpretation of what Ignatius meant.


Yes, it matters what they believe, so that it can be understood what Ignatius is talking about in context. And he said, that they don't confess Jesus ever had a flesh body, and so we know clearly that this is what they believe. "not confessing that He was truly possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him," Hence they abstain from Eucharist (thanksgiving) because they don't discern his body in the Eucharist, because they don't believe he ever possessed a body..


I have never said that Jesus' death on the cross was symbolic. The Eucharist is a remembrance of his fleshly dying on the cross, just as Jesus clearly said. Therefore, the Eucharist it is a sacrament. The term 'sacrament' means, the sign (symbol) of something sacred. Same with the word "Ephod". You are not supposed to worship the ephod, because it shows that you don't recognize the significance of what it is pointing to.


Yes, Indeed he was raised in the flesh according to scripture and the Gospel. But the Eucharist shows his death. That is the significance of it. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

I know what you mean. But In context, he is saying, that for these people who do not confess that Jesus ever truly had a body, they are abstaining from any Eucharist (thanksgiving) because they do not confess that the Eucharist is his body. In other words, there can be no thanksgiving for what Jesus is sacrificing, if you don't believe he ever had a body. It's understandable how "the Eucharist is his body" could be read to mean that it turns into a piece of his flesh, and this is the food of eternal life. But it's superstition to me.

For Jesus said, "This is my body which will be given for you". And it is clear to me that Jesus is talking about his death upon the cross, that had not come yet when he said it. So Jesus is not saying that he just turned this bread into his flesh that will then die on the cross as some vehemently claim. He's saying, that he is sacrificing himself for us. That is an important distinction. One shows reverence and empathy, and the other, doesn't even perceive the significance of the event. So what I'm saying, is that what Ignatius is saying, is being misinterpreted. The Eucharist is his body in the same sense that Jesus meant it to be perceived, in remembrance of him. To think that Ignatius is saying that those who believe Jesus came in the flesh and sacrificed himself for us because of his undying Love, abstain from thanksgiving because they don't believe the Bread and wine literally turns into his body and blood, is error.

Now the apostle Paul clearly says "it shows his death", and that of course is a past event when he says it. And that statement agrees with what Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me". Now if the Eucharist is not symbolic of his suffering and death, then what else is it? It is condemnation unto all who partake of it unworthily. There is judgment at the cup.

Hi Childeye,

How could there be more than one interpretation to what Ignatius believes? It's so clear. I had said that ti's not important WHO he's talking of in his statement but what they BELIEVED, which you confirm since you posted:

they don't believe he ever possessed a body.Hence they abstain from Eucharist (thanksgiving) because they don't discern his body in the Eucharist, because .

Maybe I didn't explain properly. The important part of your sentence above is not WHO was absatining but what they BELIEVED. (I think I had said this). The non-worthy participants to the eucharist did not believe Jesus ever possessed a real body. Okay. Then Ignatius goes on to say that BECAUSE they don't discern His body in the Eucharist, THIS makes them unworthy. They're unworthy because you DO have to discern Christ's body in the Eucharist. Which means that we, by extension, also must discern His body in the eucharist. Ignatius never says this discernment has anything to do with symbolism.

I didn't mean that you believe Jesus death on the cross was symbolic. You didn't post my statements so it's difficult for me to go back and check but I'm sure I didn't mean this. I must have been saying that if His death wasn't symbolic, then why would it necessarily have to be symbolic that what He was saying at the Last Supper couldn't also be real.

You're no. 26 above doesn't demonstrate anything to me. It's just saying to remember Him each time we eat and drink. It doesn't speak to whether the elements are changed or not. Although He does say "eat" or "drink". Real verbs, even in English.

As to what a sacrament is. I could go with your definition, but everything to do with God is sacred. A more clear definition would be that a sacrament is a visible sign to man of the love God has for us and of His grace. Something sacred could be FOR God. For instance, a bldg could be sacred - but a sacrament is given to us FROM God.

Your pp no. 6 is very interesting and brings up a whole new point. When Jesus held the bread at the Last Supper and said This Is My Body, did it change at that moment, or only after He died and was resurrected? I'll leave that one to the theologians. There's argumentation that makes sense for either way. Pretty much like for this argument which is why I almost hesitate to continue, but I'm willing to put forth what I believe, although I'm sure we've both thought about it a lot and won't be changing each others minds - but it's still interesting.

Two comments re the last pp.

You say:

Now the apostle Paul clearly says "it shows his death", and that of course is a past event when he says it.

"It shows His death" is not past tense although I'm not sure why this is important.

Regarding taking the cup unworthily - I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean a sinful state or could it mean an unworthy way of receiving that cup. Like when Paul said that Christians were to eat and drink at home and show respect for the communion meal when having a service and getting together.
1 Corinthians 11:17-22
and then he continues with 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 which is re your last pp.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

I agree. It's therefore a false dichotomy, which is why I don't give any credence to those who would use it for innuendo.


One of the problems for me, is that history shows that there was a political contention over who had the authority to turn the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. After all, if the bread that gives life is the Eucharist, then whoever had the authority to turn the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus, also had the power to hand out eternal life. It raises the question of where is the true Church? Persecutions, torture, war and death were the product of these divisions.

Another problem is that I just don't believe things because I'm told to. The Holy Spirit has never convicted me of this. And I have never read anything in the bible, nor have I ever heard it preached in the Gospel, anything at all about the bread and wine turning into the body and blood of the Christ.

What if there's supposed to be judgment at the cup? What does it mean to eat unworthily, not discerning the Lord's body? What does discern imply in that sentence? In context it seems to at least include showing the proper reverence for the occasion. If so, then this reverence cannot be faked, nor can it be the product of any voluntary effort. It must be through the power of the cross that one's heart is moved to kneel before God. Paul said this in 1 Corinthians 11:19, For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Consequently, it seems to me that Jesus intentionally offended those in John 6:26. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled". Clearly, their intentions were carnal, and self serving. How does a billionaire determine who loves him sincerely, and who loves him for his money?

Okay. This will be short. This thread is moving along too quickly!

If you agree that Jesus is fully man and fully God, how is that a false dichotomy???

Very interesting why this is important to you and I've never considered this whole argument in this light.
Thanks for saying it and making me aware. Back right after Jesus ascended, He left the apostles with the authority and then came the bishops and you know the rest of the story. However, I see your point and why it's important to you.

I agree 100% with your pp 3 and I'm doing the same, but we come up with different understandings!

I actually spoke to pp 4 in my previous post. There is question indeed as to what "unworthily" could be referring to.
I agree with the rest of it also referring to kneeling before God and the moving of the heart.

I agree with your last pp too although I don't see what it has to do with this discussion.
Jesus divided the disciples when He said you had to EAT His body and DRINK his blood and some of them walked away because His saying was too hard to take. I believe He's dividing in both cases.

Wondering