|
Post by RealistState on Aug 23, 2004 21:37:44 GMT -5
Hey, what happened to the "Papacy is not the A/C" thread? You can't post on it anymore?
In any event, on that thread, AlphaOmega posted the following, and I would like to continue the discussion/debate:
Mark 14: 22-24 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.
Christian,
I can appreciate your familiarity with the pkmtyolpage of Scripture I provided, however I do not believe he was speaking metaphorically in this instance. (This time I included the pkmtyolpage from Mark)
I'm sure you'll agree that Jesus is perfectly capable of performing such a miracle if He chose to do so. And in understanding the very nature of transubstantiation, there is no physical change in form or appearance. It is in the very nature that when Jesus spoke those words they did become His Body and His Blood, but physically remained the same.
An easier example of transubstantiation to understand is when one becomes Christian. Physically there is no outward appearance of change. But inwardly, and spiritually we become completely new creatures...part of the Body of Christ.
I hope this explains it better for you.
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Aug 23, 2004 21:45:22 GMT -5
An easier example of transubstantiation to understand is when one becomes Christian. Physically there is no outward appearance of change. But inwardly, and spiritually we become completely new creatures...part of the Body of Christ. ((((((((((Realist!!)))))))))) Gosh, I've missed seeing you! I have to say that, bar none, this is the spot-on best analogy of Christ's presence in the bread and wine of Holy Communion that I have ever heard/read/seen. Bravo!!! Bravissimo!! Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Aug 24, 2004 6:24:53 GMT -5
Hey, what happened to the "Papacy is not the A/C" thread? You can't post on it anymore? Christian, I can appreciate your familiarity with the pkmtyolpage of Scripture I provided, however I do not believe he was speaking metaphorically in this instance. (This time I included the pkmtyolpage from Mark) I'm sure you'll agree that Jesus is perfectly capable of performing such a miracle if He chose to do so. And in understanding the very nature of transubstantiation, there is no physical change in form or appearance. It is in the very nature that when Jesus spoke those words they did become His Body and His Blood, but physically remained the same. An easier example of transubstantiation to understand is when one becomes Christian. Physically there is no outward appearance of change. But inwardly, and spiritually we become completely new creatures...part of the Body of Christ. I hope this explains it better for you. RealistState, I have to disagree with what you are saying. Either the bread and the wine of the Last Supper physically changed into the flesh and blood of Christ, or they didn't, and that includes their smell, taste and texture. No indication is given in scripture that they were changed into the substance of Christ. You cannot say that the bread and the wine changed spiritually into His flesh and blood because none of these things are spiritual in themselves. Therefore, Christ was speaking metaphorically. Christian.
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Aug 24, 2004 11:23:58 GMT -5
RealistState, I have to disagree with what you are saying. Either the bread and thewine|of the Last Supper physically changed into the flesh and blood of Christ, or they didn't, and that includes their smell, taste and texture. No indication is given in scripture that they were changed into the substance of Christ. You cannot say that the bread and the wine changed spiritually into His flesh and blood because none of these things are spiritual in themselves. Therefore, Christ was speaking metaphorically. Christian. question... you say smell, taste and texture - and how would you or anyone know just what that would taste, smell or feel like? there was only one Jesus Christ, He was the only God who came in the form of man. He was of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. so when Christ, at the behest of His mother Mary changed water to wine at the wedding - why didn't they give us the vintage - so we could know it was really wine? You seem to think that Christ can't do whatever He sets His mind to (or in the wedding instance, what His mother requests). Remember the story of Christ walking on water - was that real? How about Noah, Jonah and all those other "stories" of the Bible, gracious, what about Adam & Eve? I do not put limitations on God. Andy, when you think of the Crucixion do you really think that we can even comprehend what was happening to our Lord? I know this is not the papacy thread but was wondering if you would be so kind as to possibly reply to questions that have been made there, here? if you would like them reposted please just let me know. One I questioned was - do you believe in the Trinity? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Aug 24, 2004 12:20:07 GMT -5
question... you say smell, taste and texture - and how would you or anyone know just what that would taste, smell or feel like? Come off it, Marysia! Are you really trying to suggest that wine tastes like blood, and bread tastes like human flesh? Now you really are beginning to worry me..... there was only one Jesus Christ, He was the only God who came in the form of man. He was of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. That's correct. so when Christ, at the behest of His mother Mary changed water to wine at the wedding - why didn't they give us the vintage - so we could know it was really wine? That is so funny, Marysia! ;D You seem to think that Christ can't do whatever He sets His mind to (or in the wedding instance, what His mother requests). I never said that. Remember the story of Christ walking on water - was that real? Indeed it was! How about Noah, Jonah and all those other "stories" of the Bible, gracious, what about Adam & Eve? They are true stories too.I do not put limitations on God. Andy, when you think of the Crucixion do you really think that we can even comprehend what was happening to our Lord? None of us can. I know this is not the papacy thread but was wondering if you would be so kind as to possibly reply to questions that have been made there, here? if you would like them reposted please just let me know. That's up to you.One I questioned was - do you believe in the Trinity? Absolutely!
Christian.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Aug 24, 2004 12:45:00 GMT -5
From another thread this seems to fit here: Yes, we believe that bread and wine ontologically change in substance to become the flesh and blood of Jesus. The scientific datum is irrelevent. The senses simply fail to apprehend this deeper reality. Nothing can prove it. It is a matter of faith. I love this teaching because it seems so absurd. I feel a bit like a creationist who holds to that literal belief in the face of all evidence. Many people left Jesus when he spoke of eating his body and drinking his blood it was such a hard teaching to endure. Yep, looks like bread, tastes like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread, and if it could make a sound it would sound like bread, but it ain't bread no mo. And when I go to communion and here the words, "Body of Christ", I say "AMEN". And as far as I am concerned I am taking the sacred body and precious blood into my body and we are becoming one. It is an extremely intimate moment. For others it is just a symbol. Fine. For me it is the real thing and I love it and that is why I stay in the Church accepting the teachings I don't agree with. In pkmtyolm something mystical happens. It is not just a worship service of common prayer together. We believe that the Holy Spirit makes an appearance and works this change that no eye can see but the eyes of faith. It's mystical!
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Aug 24, 2004 13:15:56 GMT -5
From another thread this seems to fit here: Yes, we believe that bread and wine ontologically change in substance to become the flesh and blood of Jesus. The scientific datum is irrelevent. The senses simply fail to apprehend this deeper reality. Nothing can prove it. It is a matter of faith. I love this teaching because it seems so absurd. I feel a bit like a creationist who holds to that literal belief in the face of all evidence. Many people left Jesus when he spoke of eating his body and drinking his blood it was such a hard teaching to endure. Yep, looks like bread, tastes like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread, and if it could make a sound it would sound like bread, but it ain't bread no mo. And when I go to communion and here the words, "Body of Christ", I say "AMEN". And as far as I am concerned I am taking the sacred body and precious blood into my body and we are becoming one. It is an extremely intimate moment. For others it is just a symbol. Fine. For me it is the real thing and I love it and that is why I stay in the Church accepting the teachings I don't agree with. In pkmtyolm something mystical happens. It is not just a worship service of common prayer together. We believe that the Holy Spirit makes an appearance and works this change that no eye can see but the eyes of faith. It's mystical! So you believe that Christ is still being crucified then. Didn't He say "It is finished" 2000 years ago at Golgotha? Christ said that He was the "bread of Life", but bread can't talk, so He was speaking metaphorically. You no doubt believe that Creationists not agreeing with Darwinists is somehow absurd. I can think of nothing more absurd than the claim that Adam and Eve were created with only half of God's likeness - that they were physically created in the image of the ape, while at the same time also created in the "spiritual" image of God! And if they were only created in the spiritual image of God, then what exactly does that mean? That their spiritual inner-self looks nothing like their physical outer-self? I have no doubt that they look very similar. And don't worry, I'm not about to exhume the corpse of Creationism versus Darwinism! I say give it a decent Christian burial! Christian.
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Aug 24, 2004 14:56:23 GMT -5
That isn't an easier example of transubstantiation, it isn't one at all. Bread doesn't have an inward spiritual nature that is subject to change. It doesn't have a presense in the spiritual world.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Aug 24, 2004 16:14:05 GMT -5
From another thread this seems to fit here: Yes, we believe that bread and wine ontologically change in substance to become the flesh and blood of Jesus. The scientific datum is irrelevent. The senses simply fail to apprehend this deeper reality. Nothing can prove it. It is a matter of faith. I love this teaching because it seems so absurd. I feel a bit like a creationist who holds to that literal belief in the face of all evidence. Many people left Jesus when he spoke of eating his body and drinking his blood it was such a hard teaching to endure. Yep, looks like bread, tastes like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread, and if it could make a sound it would sound like bread, but it ain't bread no mo. And when I go to communion and here the words, "Body of Christ", I say "AMEN". And as far as I am concerned I am taking the sacred body and precious blood into my body and we are becoming one. It is an extremely intimate moment. For others it is just a symbol. Fine. For me it is the real thing and I love it and that is why I stay in the Church accepting the teachings I don't agree with. In pkmtyolm something mystical happens. It is not just a worship service of common prayer together. We believe that the Holy Spirit makes an appearance and works this change that no eye can see but the eyes of faith. It's mystical! So in other words, you are saying that even though the bread looks like bread, feels like bread, smells like bread, and tastes like bread, and the wine looks like wine, feels like wine, smells like wine, and tastes like wine, that it actually is converted into the body and blood of Christ? If this is true, then what would be the difference between a symbolic change and this change? After all, I can't say it is a physical change, if none of the physical properties change.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 24, 2004 16:24:40 GMT -5
RealistState, I have to disagree with what you are saying. Either the bread and the wine of the Last Supper physically changed into the flesh and blood of Christ, or they didn't, and that includes their smell, taste and texture. No indication is given in scripture that they were changed into the substance of Christ. You cannot say that the bread and the wine changed spiritually into His flesh and blood because none of these things are spiritual in themselves. Therefore, Christ was speaking metaphorically. Christian. Again, you seem to missing the definition of what transubstantiation is. It is defined as the doctrine holding that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, although their appearances remain the same. Also, keep in mind that the Last Supper was a pkmtyolpover Seder. There were much better descriptive itemswere available to Him if He wished to speak metaphorically other than bread and wine. BTW, I never said that the bread and wine were spiritual. What I did imply though that Jesus could certainly chage the escence of the bread and wine into anything He wished. Keep in mind that He did multiply bread and fish to feed the multitude. The loaves and fish cerrtainly were not spiritual!
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 24, 2004 16:28:10 GMT -5
That isn't an easier example of transubstantiation, it isn't one at all. Bread doesn't have an inward spiritual nature that is subject to change. It doesn't have a presense in the spiritual world. Again, the doctrine and definition has nothing to do with the sprituality (or lack of) of an inanimate object. It is what Jesus did as gift to us to transform it's very escence. As far as becoming Christian, transubstantiaiton fits this nicely. From the outside there is no physical change.
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Aug 24, 2004 16:31:28 GMT -5
If this is true, then what would be the difference between a symbolic change and this change? The difference is in this: Jesus says in John 6 and at the Last Supper that partaking of His body and blood resulted in salvation, and Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11 that partaking wrongly (e.g., without recognizing the Body and Blood) would bring judgement on the person. How could something merely symbolic have such dire (or fantastic) consequences? Blessings, LJ **Disclaimer** I do not subscribe to the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Aug 24, 2004 16:49:33 GMT -5
The pkmtyolpage in corinithians 11 is paul writing to those who were abusing the Lord's Supper. Some members were eating and drinking so much that other members didn't recieve any. These members were not recognizing the Lord's Supper as special, but mearly as a meal. Paul wasn't refering to people who didn't literally believe that the bread and wine became the essence of the body and blood of the Christ.
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Aug 24, 2004 16:52:37 GMT -5
What is the essence of bread? How does this essence change without the bread changing? Does bread have an essence that is seperate from its physical nature?
Then what on the inside of bread is changing? On the Christian, the persons spirit is changed. There is no spirit in bread.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 24, 2004 17:16:16 GMT -5
What is the essence of bread? How does this essence change without the bread changing? Does bread have an essence that is seperate from its physical nature? Don't know. That would be a good question to ask the Lord, since only He is capable of doing so! Can you see this spirit? Can you touch or feel it? Can you taste this spirit? If you can do none of these, how do you know that they have been changed? Only God knows of someone who is His. In a word....Faith!
|
|