Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
Doug, if the RCC's can decide to do away with the blood and wine part of the communion at will, because it's too messy, what makes you think they'll have any trouble justifying they don't need the original bread and wine Jesus used, and that he gave them the magic words to be able to do the same thing at will, except there the only ones who know how this is done.
(^g^) JH
This is actually not an uncommon question among NCs who practice what they preach (that is, the clear meaning of scripture). They often accept that Christ did in fact mean what He said about that bread/wine and ask "how does that effect what is done today"? It is certainly less easy to prove than that Christ meant what He said that night, but not much less.
We could lean on tradition. That from the earliest times it is what Christians believed and practiced (I think that Josephus actually referred to Christians as the "people who think they eat their God"). But it really boils down to "do this" (or "this do" for the KJV crowd I guess) and "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you". So it woult have to be available to believers today. Paul also talked about "eating and drinking judgement" on yourself if you failed to "recognize the body and blood of Christ" when you partake communion. Christ had left long before Paul's words, yet he still considered them binding.
Notice - all quotes are honest approximations, not necessarily verbatim.
Top secret. Classified. Need-to-know basis and you don't need to know. :)
We do cease to be. Not physically, but the goal is to bury the "old" man and become converted to a new man.
The goal, yes. Is it actually accomplished in each beleiver? Here we run into the sanctification issue. We beleive it is a process that may take an entire life (or even longer).
If you think about it, it is a wonderful argument for venerating saints.
In this way the Presence is more profound and worthy of adoration.
Let's suppose that your position is true. Biblically, why would any other bread or wine besides the bread or wine that Christ actually had in his hand at the time turn into his flesh and blood?
I think IMRight hit upon the main Biblical arguments. I would simply reiterate that Christ told us to do what He just did. If we are merely performing a shadow of what He did, then we are not following His command.
SD
Wonderful. :-)
Who, among you, really knows the "Laws of the Universe"?
We really don't. If there is one thing that the discovery of quantum mechanics has done, it has been to make it more clear that the "laws" we know of physics are models that function within certain parameters. Change the parameters and we observe "violations" of our models. So we revise the model.
For example, when calculating where a ball rolling off a table will land we can use simple laws of motion. But if instead of a few feet, we are talking about projecting a missle, we then need to factor in wind resistance, etc. In the first case, it is not that wind resistance does not exist, just that it is negligible. It is the difference between engineering and science.
Science would want to fully define, to the best of its ability. Engineering realizes that if it doesn't matter, it does not matter.
Finally, can we see any echoes of the incarnation and Christ's hypostatic union in light and its apparent wave-particle duality?
SD
I hate to tell ya this, Reggie, but IMRight was being facetious.
SD
Nahh, just "divine" flesh and blood instead of "human" flesh and blood.
I suspect when you get into the 7100's you'll see that I was pulling his leg.
Swap the word "God" for "Christ" and you have the Jewish position on Christian incarnational theology.
Perhaps we need to back up a moment and define terms. What does the expression "substance change" mean to you?
It was obviously symbolic to the people he was speaking to. For he had not yet died on the cross. It was possible for those people to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood before the perfect sacrifice was given. Hence to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood was to follow him.
As I said to IMRight, I guess I did know it but never really thought about the implications. It just strikes me as very odd.
BigMack
Perhaps we need to back up a moment and define terms. What does the expression "substance change" mean to you?
That might slow us down, but OK. ;-)
When we talk of substance and accidents we mean this (as far as I understand.) The "substance" or "essence" of a thing is, as I have said, the answer to the question "what is it?"
It is a type of category or abstract. But it is also its identity. There is somewhere in our minds a prototype that we think of when we hear a word. If I say "dog" there is an abstract that we all recognize, though we may have a hard time describing it. You may think of a particular dog, a Great Dane. I may think of a miniature poodle. These are "accidents," or actual existing specimens or examples of the "substance" of "dog."
When we see a four legged beast of a certain type, we recognize it as a "dog." It is a concrete example of the substance of "dog." It IS a dog. It's essence is "dog."
Now then, imagine that, for some reason a particular dog, perhaps one you know, is suddenly and miraculously changed into a cat. Except he doesn't look or smell any different. It is only by faith that we know that this one particular dog is now really, in substance, a cat. Even though the accidents of "dog" remain it has been elevated to the substance of "cat." It's essence is cat. It IS a cat.
SD
Where does it say that?
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.