Yet Another Protestantism & Communion Thread

[Roy5]

CompSciGuy

  **The Virgin Birth is questioned by many mainline Protestants.** My guess would be that as many as, say, well - at least half of all UCC, Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal clergy would not view it as a required belief. Why do both genealogies of Jesus (which disagree with one another, by the way) trace his ancestry through Joseph? Virgin mothers were commonplace in the religions and folklore of the ancient Middle East. It was a way of honoring a god or goddess in that time and place..

** As for the physical resurrection of Christ, that is accepted by most mainline Protestants, true, though some would see that and other such accounts as symbolic rather than historic.** Paul Tillich, for example, a leading Protestant theologian who was a prominent seminary professor of theology, taught that idea.

   **One does not understand Protestantism until they realize that it contains large numbers of Christians who seek to follow the teachings of Christ but are skeptical when it comes to many things in the Bible.** They would doubt, for example, that a loving God ordered Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of Jericho once the walls fell or commanded Saul to murder every remaining Amalekite, including infants born and unborn. They certainly would object to verses like Ex. 22:18 and 20, and would consider II Kings 2:23-25 as a ridiculous slander against God.  They would even have questions re Jesus driving demons into a herd of pigs who then rushed down a cliff to their death. Or, Paul's statement that women should keep silent in the churches.

  **  We could go on and on. Millions of mainline Protestants are 'selective' when it comes  to the Bible, heavily influenced by what is called 'higher criticism'.**  Unlike fundamentalist Protestants they feel free to pick and choose what they regard as reasonable passages and set aside or leave open for discussion many scriptural passages that they feel contradict the message of love, the central theme of Christianity. How can one talk about love while shouting with joy "Saul has killed his thousands but David has killed his ten thousands!"? And how can they accept the Biblical salute to the revered wisdom of Solomon when he had 700 wives and 300 concubines?

** Yes, the Bible is a treasury of spiritual wisdom, but parts of its are bloodthirsty** accounts of genocide and other forms of brutality, all committed in the name of God.

   **Evangelical Protestantism is much more aggressive, so it often is seen as the 'face of Protestantism', especially in the South.  Millions are not evangelical in that sense.** Their devotion to Christ is strong, but they don't feel the need to believe the unbelievable. Because they are not dogmatic, they have less enphasis on converting others, even respect non-Christian traditions, and certainly do not believe that non-Christians cannot gain salvation. Christ, after all, is forgiving and merciful. He lifted up a despised and heretical Samaritan as an example of one going on to eternal life, and Matt. 25:31ff says nothing about doctrine or church affiliation when it divides the sheep from the goats. Many former Catholics who want a more open church fellowship, where differences in belief are respected, end up in mainline Protestant churches.  

 **But God bless everybody **- of all creeds, colors, cultures and countries. Let us stribe to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier!

 

[Radical]

Well, Xzereus, you asked for a more detailed explanation…so here it is. I have started with verse 26 of John Chapter 6. The scripture (from the NIV) appears in bold, with my commentary following. I have also addressed some arguments that I have heard here from Catholics and some difficulties that I see with tying the eating to the Eucharist. If you would like my interpretation of other passages, I am happy to do so, but at this time you seem to be interested specifically in John 6.

**26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” **

Christ detects that his followers (that day) were looking for him b/c they valued the meal that he had provided (and not even b/c of the wondrous miracle that he performed). In keeping with that desire, he works off of a theme based on “food” and admonishes them to seek after food that gives eternal life.

**28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” **

Here Christ has returned to what the gospel’s author presents as Christ’s main message…believe in the one sent by the Father (implying that he is that one).

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, 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 the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

The Jews respond by pointing out that their forefathers knew Moses was sent by the Father b/c he gave signs such as manna. Ironically, they hadn’t given priority to the previously provided sign. Christ points out that it was the Father who actually supplies the bread of heaven (both Christ and his audience have continued with the “food” theme).

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

The Jews requested this superior bread from the Father and Christ identified the bread as himself. Obviously, he is not literally bread (This is a figure of speech and if one wanted to be technical about Catholic claims, then the Eucharistic bread is not Christ either, as it allegedly ceases to be bread in substance and becomes his body in substance. Here, at the start, coming to Christ is identified as the thing that enables the comer never to go hungry and believing in Christ is identified as the thing that enables the believer to never be thirsty. This matches the living water of Chapter 4. There Christ talked about living water, that when drank, would enable the drinker to never thirst again.

** 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”**

Again, belief is emphasized by Christ as the thing that the Jews failed to do and the thing that causes eternal life. The author of the gospel also starts to explain that the Father plays a role in determining who will believe in Christ.

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

The grumbling (in disbelief) begins at this point, when they cannot fathom how Christ could properly claim to have come down from heaven.

 

[Radical]

**43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” **

In response to their grumbling, Christ repeats his teachings:

a) that belief gives eternal life (and since eating bread [as opposed to a body] is also identiifed as giving eternal; life, one can equate eating the heavenly bread with belief in Christ). The idea of being raised up (to eternal life) on the last day is introduced. It it also obvious that Christ was using a figure when he identiifed the bread as his flesh…for the bread is never his flesh and most certainly wasn’t his flesh on that day. No real bread was mentioned as present.

b) that those who listen to the Father come to Christ, and no one can come to Christ unless drawn by the Father. This, I believe is offered by the author as a justification as to why many disciples abandoned Christ that day…they weren’t really his in the first place, not having been drawn by the Father…this also explains why Christ made no effort to stop them when they walked away. Unless, they were drawn by the Father, they couldn’t come to Christ and none (that were given) were lost.

c) those who eat the bread from heaven (which is again identified as Christ), will not die and will live forever. The bread from heaven is contrasted with manna, the consumption of which did not prevent the eater from dying. The Catholic Eucharist like the manna, when consumed, also does not prevent one from dying (or from hungering again or from thirsting again). The manna pointed to Christ and the Eucharistic bread points to Christ’s work on the cross. Manna actually served to feed the people and kept them alive (for the time being). In contrast, Eucharistic bread is rarely supplied in a quantity that would do much of anything wrt keeping someone alive here on earth.

d) Christ reveals that he will give his flesh for the life of the world. In that gospel it is made clear that Christ’s flesh is given (for the world) at the cross. The Last Supper is not mentioned in that gospel.

**52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” **

The Jews do not understand the figure of speech. They grasp/repeat that his flesh will be given (as opposed to taken), but don’t understand HOW the giving will be achieved. Reading through to Chapters 18 & 19 would answer the HOW, for one who has the whole gospel, as in those chapters the giving of Christ’s flesh is described… The Jewish audience doesn’t have the rest of the story and so the meaning is lost on them on that day.

**53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. **

In response to their arguing, Christ altered and heightened his use of a figure of speech. Now, eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood are required for eternal life. In chapter four, drinking living water gave eternal life (v. 14). In chapter 3 being born was required for eternal eternal life. Belief is stressed in both Chapters 3 and 6 as what is required for eternal life. Either Christ is being inconsistent or he is using various figures of speech to describe the need for belief. The Catholic Eucharist (as with any other Eucharist) does not provide eternal life…many who have participated in that ritual will perish. The emphasis here (on both flesh and blood) points to Christ giving his flesh and pouring out his blood on the cross. Likewise, the Lord’s Supper, when properly conducted, points to Christ giving his flesh and pouring out his blood on the cross. The figure of speech in this passage and the symbolism of the elements of the Lord’s Supper both point to the cross and hence, we can see a similarity between the two.

 

[Radical]

Some Catholics are inclined to make a big deal out of Christ’s use of the word “gnaw” (trogos/trogon) in this passage. I do not think that “trogos” in any way necessitates a non-figurative understanding. I am absolutely unaware of any linguistic rule (in either Greek or English) that prohibits the use of “trogos” in a figurative statement.

For example, I might tell you that “I’d eat you alive” if you try to make the argument that the use of “trogos” in John 6 supports the doctrine of a real bodily presence. I might also tell you that “I’d chew you up and spit you out” if you try to argue that the use of “trogos” in John 6 supports the doctrine of a real bodily presence. You should note that my use of more graphic words such as “chew” and “spit” does not mean that the second claim should be understood literally.

What has always puzzled me about the assertion (that the use of “trogos” is indicative of a real bodily presence) is that no one who believes in a real bodily presence actually has ever “trogos-ed” any flesh at a Eucharist…the participant’s teeth never actually touch the flesh of Jesus…the most that could be claimed is that the “accidents” of the participant’s teeth are involved in a chewing action that also involves the “accidents” of the bread. Chewing flesh involves grinding it into smaller bits…at the Catholic Eucharist, do Catholic’s grind Christ’s flesh into ever smaller bits?..I thought Christ’s body was supposed to be present (in its entirety) in each and every bit…I have no idea why any one would think the use of “trogos” is indicative of a real bodily presence. It simply doesn’t follow.

**55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. **

Christ had already established his use of “food” (at Chapter 4:34) as being a figure of speech. Christ’s food = doing the Father’s will…and in relation to his flesh and blood, that obedience to the Father’s will entailed the giving of his flesh and the pouring out of his blood at the cross.

**56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. **

Here Christ explains that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood remains in him and he in them. Elsewhere this concept (remains in him and he in them) is expressed as:

The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

• AND -
  This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God.
  (1 John 3:24 and 1 John 4:13-15 NIV)

If you understand, that in John 6,Christ used various figures of speech to describe the need for belief in him (as being sent by the Father to be the Savior of the world), then this all ties togther very neatly. It then works like this: In John 6, eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood is a figure that stands for believing in Chirst as being sent by the Father to be the Savior of the world through his death on the cross. That belief (eating/drinking) causes the believer to remain in him, and he in them. In 1 John that same concept is repeated …believing that Jesus was sent by the Father is what causes God to live in one and one to live in God… Futhermore, knowing that God lives in you and you in him is tied our receipt of the Spirit and not to having participated in the Eucharistic ritual.

**58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” **

Here Christ is back to identifying himself as bread. Catholics here have argued that:

a) a figurative meaning would not constitute a hard meaning

b) only a literal meaning (wrt eating Christ’s flesh) could constitute a hard teaching; and

c) Christ would have done something to persuade his disciples to not walk away (in the case of a figurative eating).

 

[Radical]

I don’t agree with any of those assertions and believe that those assertions come from an extremely common (around here, at least) misreading of John 6 and an incorrect assessment of what the crowd understood that day and what Christ intended that day. I note:

a) Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been transubstantiated into his body. Transubstantiation would have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not transubstantiation or the Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.

b) Likewise, Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been mysteriously changed into his body. That such could be the case would also have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not any sort of “real presence” teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.

c) At the time of John 6 the Lord’s Supper had not been held and as such, there is no way that the audience could have even understood that Jesus was talking about a future Sacrament involving bread and wine. As such, the “hard teaching” that some rejected was not in any way connected to the Eucharist (in their minds), b/c the future existence of that Sacrament was totally unknown to the audience.

What then was the “hard teaching” that they heard? I suppose one could believe that they took Jesus to be requiring a cannibalistic act from them….such is possible b/c that is where a literal understanding (of his very graphic words) would actually lead. One should note that Christ’s use of “chew” or “gnaw” would require the eater to actually bite into his flesh and chew on it for a literal fulfillment of Jesus’ words. In the Catholic Eucharist, no gnawing of flesh actually occurs b/c the accidents of the teeth never meet the accidents of Christ’s body. The Catholic Eucharist is not a literal fulfillment of John 6. If some walked away from a literal understanding, then those that left, rejected cannibalism (and the teacher of it).

I don’t know, however, that any of those people would have thought that Jesus was requiring a cannibalistic act from them. Jesus was profoundly moral and cannibalism is profoundly immoral. Also, do we really suppose that any disciple would have thought that Jesus was actually requiring that he be carved up and eaten? Do we really suppose that any disciple would have thought that Jesus was actually requiring that they abandon the Law to participate in cannibalism? I suspect many would have concluded that Jesus couldn’t have intended to be taken literally, but w/o further explanation from him, they wouldn’t have known what to make of his words. Those words wouldn’t have made sense and would have been very offensive. If that is right, then those that left rejected (what to them seemed to be) a nonsensical and offensive teaching (and the perceived teacher of it).

The text doesn’t say why Jesus made no effort to clarify his meaning, but it makes it very clear that none left who had been actually called by the Father. Christ could have called out, “Wait I am only speaking metaphorically” or “Wait I am not speaking of cannibalism or of your teeth actually chewing my flesh”, but he didn’t, b/c it seems that he didn’t care to.

**61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! **

This response by Christ seems to indicate that the “hard teaching” had more to do with his claim to have come done from heaven, than it had to do with his claim that he would give him his flesh to eat. The claim that he came from heaven is what started their grumbling (in the first place) and his question (re seeing Christ ascend to heaven) makes much more sense if coming from heaven is the difficulty. They would be offended by him claiming to be sent from heaven by the Father (when they thought that they knew that he had mere human parents).

**63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. **

IMHO, this too makes more sense if we understand the “hard teaching” to be Christ’s claim to have come done from heaven. In that case, Christ is essentially saying, don’t judge where I came from based on who you think are my earthly parents (that parental flesh counts for nothing). Instead, Christ is telling them to judge where he came from based on his wrds being full of the Spirit and life.

**64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” **

At the end, we see yet another emphasis on the need to believe in Christ (and that he came from heaven as the Holy One of God).

 

[xzereus]

xzereus,
We must be careful when we look at verse 63. If it is taken out of context, it can be used to further heresy. I think it was the Gnostic heresy that denied the flesh, then completely misused scripture to lead souls down the wrong path.

Again, I am only playing Devil’s Advocate. None of the anti-Eucharistic feelings I have been portraying are my own. I believe absolutely in the Eucharist.

@Radical Considering how extensive your post is, I will probably not get back to you for a day or two. Thank you for getting back as you said you would.

 

[Radical]

Church Militant, I promised I would look at your blog and so here it is. You quote scripture that is very familiar (ending with first Cor). You then write:

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of a person and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol. I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the person, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.

Your above arguments are two of the favorites of Catholics around here and so I have already responded to them on a number of occasions. Here is how I have responded previously (when presented with essentially the same arguments)…first regarding 1 Cor 10 and then regarding 1st Cor 11:

1 Cor 10 reads: 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. 18 Look at the nation Israel ; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar ? 19 What do I mean then ? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything ? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God ; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons ; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

WRT the sharing in the body and blood that some think points to a real bodily presence (RBP), please note how Paul continues and then applies the “sharing” to the altar (of the Israelites) where one eats one thing (ie a sacrificial animal) and then shares in another thing (the stone altar). This establishes two things. First, it establishes that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, consumption of the thing one shares in, is not required (they didn’t consume the altar). Second, it establishes that one can consume one thing (such as mere bread) and share in another (the body of Christ). As such, a RBP is not required.

Further, Paul then contemplated the matter as it related to demons. He stated that one can become a “sharer” with demons establishing that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, a real bodily presence is not required since demons do not have bodies. If that wasn’t enough, Paul also indicated that one could be a partner with demons by eating food sacrificed to idols even though an idol isn’t anything. This again demonstrates that a RBP is not necessary for the partnership Paul envisioned.

 

[Radical]

regarding 1 Cor 11

1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "

Three things in response to your reference to 1 Cor 11.

1. Please note the use of “Therefore” at the start of verse 27. That use would mean that Paul saw the reason for the guilt as being the fact that the Lord’s Supper was a proclamation/shew of the Lord’s death (and not b/c some real bodily presence was involved).
2. My oldest and dearest friend is a good Catholic fellow who complains that twice a year (at Christmas and Easter) he has a hard time finding a seat at his church because the twice-a-year-Catholics (2YCs) show up and fill up the place. It seems to me that if the real bodily presence of the Lord (RBP) caused people who participated unworthily to get sick (as you seem to claim), and if the Catholic Eucharist actually involves a RBP (as you claim), then the emergency rooms should see a serious spike in attendees at Christmas and Easter (exactly b/c of those 2YCs…yes, some would get their acts together, but a good percentage would be unworthily participating). It would be very easy to empirically test this hypothesis and I can only wonder (with all the studies that have been done trying to improve our health care system) why such a pronounced spike hasn’t been spotted. I kinda suspect that it is b/c such a spike doesn’t exist (b/c a RBP also doesn’t exist). As a result, people are falling over at the Catholic Church to the same extent as they do at the waffle house.
3. In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, … How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.

a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper

b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.

c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RBP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RBP.

d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 is more significant and so “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him” would appear to be more significant than " profaning the body and blood of the Lord".

e) An assumption that a RBP must be involved (at 1 Cor 11) b/c the offense is described in such a serious manner fails b/c Hebrews 10 describes a more serious offense against the body (what else would one trample) and against the blood of Christ w/o a RBP being involved

 

[Radical]

You then moved on to Ignatius and wrote:

In addition to these passages of the New Testament I would also like to add this very clear quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a close friend and disciple of St. John the evangelist , the bishop of Antioch and a martyr for the faith.

The standard stuff from Ignatius was then provided. Again, I have seen it all before and so, here is how I have responded before:

Ignatius uses extremely dramatic language such that you can’t be certain that he is speaking literally. For example:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

You should note that Ignatius says Christ’s blood = incorruptible love. Not exactly literal…which isn’t unusual at all. Ignatius tends to stray from the literal which is why you can’t be sure that when he said that the “Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” that he was talking about a Real Somatic Presence. At that point he is talking about the Docetists. When Ignatius states that the Eucharist is the flesh, he could mean that the Eucharist is the flesh a)literally, b)symbolically, c)sacramentally, d)representatively, or e)mysteriously etc. The Docetists seemed to deny that Christ came in the flesh. As such, they would not confess that the Eucharist was literally the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. Likewise, they would not confess that the Eucharist was symbolically the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. In fact, they would not confess that the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ in any way, shape or form b/c (they believed that) no such flesh existed. Here is an article that goes into detail as to why you shouldn’t assume that Ignatius was speaking literally.

You should also take into account the possibility that Ignatius had a Platonic philosophy as the basis for his view of reality. That would mean that he would discount what is sensed (not just the bread and the wine that is continually observed at a Eucharist, but everything that is observed) and would hold that true reality existed in the realm of ideas. With that in mind, what would Ignatius mean by saying that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus? Specifically, “how” was it the flesh of Jesus by way of Ignatius’ thinking? If you want to rely on Ignatius you must be able to explain the “how” of his claim and not just assume that his “how” is the same as your “how” …particularly, if you don’t share the underlying philosophy.

The simple fact is that we do not have enough from Ignatius to know what he believed regarding HOW the bread was the flesh of Christ.

Also, I should point out that you are overreaching by claiming that Ignatius was “a close friend and disciple of St. John the evangelist”. Do you have any source for them being close friends? Eusebius explains how Irenaeus was confused about Papias knowing John the Apostle…Given the possibility of confusion, you should be saying that Ignatius might have been (or was likely/quite possibly) a disciple of St. John the evangelist.

 

[CopticChristian]

You then moved on to Ignatius and wrote:

The standard stuff from Ignatius was then provided. Again, I have seen it all before and so, here is how I have responded before:

Ignatius uses extremely dramatic language such that you can’t be certain that he is speaking literally. (kinda like that hyberbole lesson you gave) For example:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

You should note that Ignatius says Christ’s blood = incorruptible love. Not exactly literal…which isn’t unusual at all. Ignatius tends to stray from the literal which is why you can’t be sure that when he said that the “Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” that he was talking about a Real Somatic Presence. At that point he is talking about the Docetists. When Ignatius states that the Eucharist is the flesh, he could mean that the Eucharist is the flesh a)literally, b)symbolically, c)sacramentally, d)representatively, or e)mysteriously etc. The Docetists seemed to deny that Christ came in the flesh. As such, they would not confess that the Eucharist was literally the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. Likewise, they would not confess that the Eucharist was symbolically the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. In fact, they would not confess that the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ in any way, shape or form b/c (they believed that) no such flesh existed. Here is an article that goes into detail as to why you shouldn’t assume that Ignatius was speaking literally.

You should also take into account the possibility that Ignatius had a Platonic philosophy as the basis for his view of reality. That would mean that he would discount what is sensed (not just the bread and the wine that is continually observed at a Eucharist, but everything that is observed) and would hold that true reality existed in the realm of ideas. With that in mind, what would Ignatius mean by saying that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus? Specifically, “how” was it the flesh of Jesus by way of Ignatius’ thinking? If you want to rely on Ignatius you must be able to explain the “how” of his claim and not just assume that his “how” is the same as your “how” …particularly, if you don’t share the underlying philosophy.

The simple fact is that we do not have enough from Ignatius to know what he believed regarding HOW the bread was the flesh of Christ.

Also, I should point out that you are overreaching by claiming that Ignatius was “a close friend and disciple of St. John the evangelist”. Do you have any source for them being close friends? Eusebius explains how Irenaeus was confused about Papias knowing John the Apostle…Given the possibility of confusion, you should be saying that Ignatius might have been (or was likely/quite possibly) a disciple of St. John the evangelist.

So, then it would be safe to say that you are not in the RBP camp.

 

[Radical]

So, then it would be safe to say that you are not in the RBP camp.

I can’t see that camp from mine…though it would seem that I can communicate with it by shouting.

 

[hn160]

Getting back to John 6, Lutheran theologian Charles Porterfield Krauth in his book The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology ( a good read ) said In quoting the sixth chapter of John, as bearing on the Lord’s Supper, it may be well, once for all, to say that it is quoted not on the supposition that it speaks of the Lord’s Supper specifically, but that in stating the general doctrine of the life-giving power of Christ’s flesh and blood, it states a doctrine under which the benefits of the sacramental eating comes a species. If we comr into supernatural, blessed participation of Christ’s body and blood, in an act of faith, without the Lord’s Supper, a fortiori, we have a blessed participation of them in the act of the Lord’s Supper. The sixth chapter of John treats the grand end of which the Lord’s Supper is the grand means. We partake of Christ’s body and blood sacramentally, in order that we may partake of them savingly. Of the latter, not the former, the sixth of John speaks.

 

[CompSciGuy]

CompSciGuy

  **The Virgin Birth is questioned by many mainline Protestants.** My guess would be that as many as, say, well - at least half of all UCC, Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal clergy would not view it as a required belief. Why do both genealogies of Jesus (which disagree with one another, by the way) trace his ancestry through Joseph? Virgin mothers were commonplace in the religions and folklore of the ancient Middle East. It was a way of honoring a god or goddess in that time and place..

** As for the physical resurrection of Christ, that is accepted by most mainline Protestants, true, though some would see that and other such accounts as symbolic rather than historic.** Paul Tillich, for example, a leading Protestant theologian who was a prominent seminary professor of theology, taught that idea.

   **One does not understand Protestantism until they realize that it contains large numbers of Christians who seek to follow the teachings of Christ but are skeptical when it comes to many things in the Bible.** They would doubt, for example, that a loving God ordered Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of Jericho once the walls fell or commanded Saul to murder every remaining Amalekite, including infants born and unborn. They certainly would object to verses like Ex. 22:18 and 20, and would consider II Kings 2:23-25 as a ridiculous slander against God.  They would even have questions re Jesus driving demons into a herd of pigs who then rushed down a cliff to their death. Or, Paul's statement that women should keep silent in the churches.

  **  We could go on and on. Millions of mainline Protestants are 'selective' when it comes  to the Bible, heavily influenced by what is called 'higher criticism'.**  Unlike fundamentalist Protestants they feel free to pick and choose what they regard as reasonable passages and set aside or leave open for discussion many scriptural passages that they feel contradict the message of love, the central theme of Christianity. How can one talk about love while shouting with joy "Saul has killed his thousands but David has killed his ten thousands!"? And how can they accept the Biblical salute to the revered wisdom of Solomon when he had 700 wives and 300 concubines?

** Yes, the Bible is a treasury of spiritual wisdom, but parts of its are bloodthirsty** accounts of genocide and other forms of brutality, all committed in the name of God.

   **Evangelical Protestantism is much more aggressive, so it often is seen as the 'face of Protestantism', especially in the South.  Millions are not evangelical in that sense.** Their devotion to Christ is strong, but they don't feel the need to believe the unbelievable. Because they are not dogmatic, they have less enphasis on converting others, even respect non-Christian traditions, and certainly do not believe that non-Christians cannot gain salvation. Christ, after all, is forgiving and merciful. He lifted up a despised and heretical Samaritan as an example of one going on to eternal life, and Matt. 25:31ff says nothing about doctrine or church affiliation when it divides the sheep from the goats. Many former Catholics who want a more open church fellowship, where differences in belief are respected, end up in mainline Protestant churches.  

 **But God bless everybody **- of all creeds, colors, cultures and countries. Let us stribe to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier!

I’m telling you, this is not representative of the majority of mainline Protestantism. I think you are speaking from your limited experience. If you go to 99% of Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc. websites you will find that they believe in all of these things as necessary Christian truth. I grew up Protestant, I have been to many, many Protestant churches in my lifetime. I think I am qualified to say, I understand Protestantism. The percentage of self-professed methodists, presbyterians, etc. who don’t believe in a literal virgin birth or a literal resurrection are in the minority.

 

[Roy5]

CompSciGuy

 They did a study of clergy opinions on doctrine some years ago and I believe my figures are basically correct. Mainline Protestants exercise enormous freedom when it comes to such matters. It may vary some as to where people live. Methodists in Mississippi and Alabama, for example, would likely be more conservative than in New England and the West Coast. 

 I, too, am well acquainted with Protestantism. One of my hobbies, if you will, is visiting churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, etc. You might say that studying/surveying religions is that hobby. Protestants here in the northeast - Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and UCC - tend to be very liberal, almost Unitarian except that they focus much more attention on the uniqueness of Christ than Unitarians do. Methodists, I find, are not very doctrinal. Their emphasis always has been upon a simple faith and holy living. I am not as acquainted with Lutheranism, though I have found major differences of opinion among them, also. I've read that the ELCA has oked the ordination of gay ministers, for example, which suggests considerable liberalism within that denomination. The Disciples of Christ also is quite liberal, though this is a denomination little known in the Northeast. 

 This is not to say that there are not conservatives (evangelicals) in these mainline denominations that permit a wide latitude when it comes to doctrine. Many congregations contain members of diverse views who dwell together in peace because an atmosphere of tolerance is pervasive. Like within many Catholic churches in our area, communicants range from very orthodox/traditional to very liberal. 

 Keep smiling.

 

[CopticChristian]

CompSciGuy

 They did a study of clergy opinions on doctrine some years ago and I believe my figures are basically correct. Mainline Protestants exercise enormous freedom when it comes to such matters. It may vary some as to where people live. Methodists in Mississippi and Alabama, for example, would likely be more conservative than in New England and the West Coast. 

 I, too, am well acquainted with Protestantism. One of my hobbies, if you will, is visiting churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, etc. You might say that studying/surveying religions is that hobby. Protestants here in the northeast - Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and UCC - tend to be very liberal, almost Unitarian except that they focus much more attention on the uniqueness of Christ than Unitarians do. Methodists, I find, are not very doctrinal. Their emphasis always has been upon a simple faith and holy living. I am not as acquainted with Lutheranism, though I have found major differences of opinion among them, also. I've read that the ELCA has oked the ordination of gay ministers, for example, which suggests considerable liberalism within that denomination. The Disciples of Christ also is quite liberal, though this is a denomination little known in the Northeast. 

 This is not to say that there are not conservatives (evangelicals) in these mainline denominations that permit a wide latitude when it comes to doctrine. Many congregations contain members of diverse views who dwell together in peace because an atmosphere of tolerance is pervasive. Like within many Catholic churches in our area, communicants range from very orthodox/traditional to very liberal. 

 Keep smiling.

Go forward and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit…and be sure to include Conservative, Liberal, wide lattitude and dissenting in the formula that we may all be one…as I and the Father are one…

 

[Roy5]

CompSciGuy

** It is my personal view that Christians can have a strong sense of unity**, that we can be truly one fellowship, and still permit individual Christians the right to have differing views when it comes to various doctrinal matters. In this universe of perhaps as many as a billion solar systems, who can claim to have ultimate knowledge of matters beyond human knowledge and understanding? Isn’t that essentially why we worship God? I note that Protestants disagree on certain dogmae but still cooperate through the National and World Councils of Churches. Catholic clergy now are much involved in local clergy associations (formerly ministerial associations) and that is a good thing.

I believe that true freedom of religion - for me, anyway - involves the right to think for ourselves, to weigh, investigate, question, discuss, ponder, perhaps even dissent. I know that this is not a popular view among those who insist that one must abide by the conclusions reached by the Magisterium, but that is the conclusion I have reached over the years. This has made it difficult for me to conform automatically to any church, pastor, creed, or whatever that limits our right to think for ourselves. This also has tended to distance me from the Catholicism on the paternal side of our family. I respect various faiths as they seek to reach out to the Divine as long as they tolerate my right to do the same. Christ remains my personal guide, Shepherd, model, and Lord.

** Therefore - in line with this thread - I respect diverse ways of interpretating communion.** If people can believe in Transubstantiation, fine. Half of US Catholics apparently don’t believe in it. If Christians view communion as symbolic. Fine. All Christians I know agree that Christ is actually present as he promised - “lo, I am with you always…” The question becomes: “Does the prayer of consecration by the priest change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?” We can and should respect the views of one another.

** By the way, “I and my Father are one.”** An important verse you quote. But what does one do with verses like Matt. 19:17 - “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but the Father.” Etc.

 **Scripture can be confusing**. Therefore, many look to their church or their preacher to interpret it for them. Okay with me. But I treasure the right to examine such texts and wrestle with their meaning myself or within a Bible study group where free conversation is welcome. I rather think that God approves of such wrestling. I certainly don't believe that our God of love and mercy and compassion frowns upon those who are serious in their exploration of spiritual truth.

** Keep smiling.** God bless people of all creeds, colors, cultures and countries. Let us strive to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

 

[CopticChristian]

CompSciGuy

** It is my personal view that Christians can have a strong sense of unity**, that we can be truly one fellowship, and still permit individual Christians the right to have differing views when it comes to various doctrinal matters. In this universe of perhaps as many as a billion solar systems, who can claim to have ultimate knowledge of matters beyond human knowledge and understanding? Isn’t that essentially why we worship God? I note that Protestants disagree on certain dogmae but still cooperate through the National and World Councils of Churches. Catholic clergy now are much involved in local clergy associations (formerly ministerial associations) and that is a good thing.

I believe that true freedom of religion - for me, anyway - involves the right to think for ourselves, to weigh, investigate, question, discuss, ponder, perhaps even dissent. I know that this is not a popular view among those who insist that one must abide by the conclusions reached by the Magisterium, but that is the conclusion I have reached over the years. This has made it difficult for me to conform automatically to any church, pastor, creed, or whatever that limits our right to think for ourselves. This also has tended to distance me from the Catholicism on the paternal side of our family. I respect various faiths as they seek to reach out to the Divine as long as they tolerate my right to do the same. Christ remains my personal guide, Shepherd, model, and Lord.

** Therefore - in line with this thread - I respect diverse ways of interpretating communion.** If people can believe in Transubstantiation, fine. Half of US Catholics apparently don’t believe in it. If Christians view communion as symbolic. Fine. All Christians I know agree that Christ is actually present as he promised - “lo, I am with you always…” The question becomes: “Does the prayer of consecration by the priest change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?” We can and should respect the views of one another.

** By the way, “I and my Father are one.”** An important verse you quote. But what does one do with verses like Matt. 19:17 - “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but the Father.” Etc.

 **Scripture can be confusing**. Therefore, many look to their church or their preacher to interpret it for them. Okay with me. But I treasure the right to examine such texts and wrestle with their meaning myself or within a Bible study group where free conversation is welcome. I rather think that God approves of such wrestling. I certainly don't believe that our God of love and mercy and compassion frowns upon those who are serious in their exploration of spiritual truth.

** Keep smiling.** God bless people of all creeds, colors, cultures and countries. Let us strive to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

Wrestle on. This I hear over and over again from Scott Hahn as part of why he had to become Catholic. Wrestle on.

 

[Roy5]

Just for the record, I have watched Scott Hahn many times on EWTN - and still do. He holds on to the fundamentalist mindset of his former evangelical Protestantism but now in its Catholic version. Again, no problem. He is very articulate, with an answer to every question. I wish it were that simple.

** When I say wrestle, by the way, I don’t see this as a burden but as a wonderful freedom.** Hahn and others - avid Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. - often embrace a ‘we alone have the only real truth’ mentality, and that is fine. Good for them. Just that millions of us relish the right to ‘think and let think’ and not insist that our faith is the one and only true faith.

** This all reminds me of that old parable from India re the elephant**. While the details of that parable evade me at the moment, as I recall various blind people held on to parts of the elephant and came up with differing ‘guesses’ as to what it was. None of them had an idea of the whole creature, just a part of it, so their guesses missed the mark. I’m happy to worship a God who is well beyond our comprehension but in whom I have total faith. “The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear?” I don’t need creeds which set limits to my exciting experience of that Lord who transcends human understanding.

** God bless everybody.**

 

[Newsy]

Go forward and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit…and be sure to include Conservative, Liberal, wide lattitude and dissenting in the formula that we may all be one…as I and the Father are one…

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Jesus also said “I am the door” and “I am the gate” etc. He spoke in figurative language.

Yeah he also did not place his hands on either physical object and bless them and tellings us to eat it. Did any of of his followers take him literally? Nope! Did any leave him and no longer follow him? Nope! Nothing odd about “I am the gate” and the “I am the vine” as being figurative. If John 6 were figurative,then why would anyone be offended and say the teaching was hard to accept? The whole symbolic argument is pure nonsense and a novelty trying to be put in the mouth of God. Whatever God declared happens…plain and simple.