Replies

You are arguing against positions that I do not, in fact, hold.

The verses in question, from your Post #133 (1 Cor. 11:25-27; version?):

“In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”
Here are the positions that seem to me to be your positions:

========

1. Post #133:

. . (a) . . . Communion is, yes, the real Body and Blood of Christ.
. . (b) And also bread and wine . . .
. . (c) . . . because that’s ALSO what Jesus says they are.
. . (d) How? No idea, . . .
. . (e) . . . but Scripture is our source of truth, . . .
. . (f) . . . and that’s what it says.
. . (g) . . . you CAN make an argument solely from Scripture about the whole Communion thing.

=========

2. Post #142:

. . (a) Scripture states clearly that it is both.
. . (b) . . . because Jesus rose from the dead . . . being . . . God . . .
. . (c) . . . he laid his stamp of approval on it . . .
. . (d) Therefore . . I believe it.
. . (e) Don’t ask me how it’s true because I don’t know; . . .
. . (f) . . . I only know it is.

======

Query 1: Are the above not your positions?

Query 2: Is stating them thus equivalent to putting words in your mouth, or did you not submit these positions?
=======

3. Post #233: . . (a) I... don’t think that we quite understand each other.
. . (b) You are arguing against positions that I do not, in fact, hold.
. . (c) All I’m saying at the moment is that Jesus was being literal when he said, paraphrased, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.”
. . (d) And that Paul confirms it.
. . (e) I have no idea where you got everything else you posted.
. . (f) . . . so much of it seems to be trying to put words into my mouth.

=======

I thought I completely understood what you said, so my reply in Post #141 was directed to your points in #133, namely 1. (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) above, implying a refutation of 1. (g), to wit.

If you did not understand what I said in that post, why did you answer it in #143 as if you did?

In Post #202, perhaps I thought you had sufficient Biblical background for you to appreciate that your administration of Communion presumes that it is a re-sacrifice of Jesus. I also took it for granted that your training had taught you that one of Jesus' great aims in teaching was to accustom his students (and subsequently also us) to grasp figurative-literal language as well as plain-literal language in understanding literal interpretation of the then-existing Scripture, and to differentiate the two modes. His training vehicle was explaining to them the meaning of His parables, for of this we find in the Scriptures:

Mt. 13:34 AV:
"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: . . ."

Mk. 4:34 AV
"But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples."

From the absence of negative reaction of His inner circle to Jesus' claims in Jn. 6:53,61, and 66, as well as at the initiation of the Remembrance memorial, we must conclude that His disciples were well-accustomed to dealing with the significance of symbolic spiritual meanings, and not be offended that the bread did not literally taste like flesh meat, and the wine still tasted like wine and not warm human blood. Their ability to think in abstract figurative terms was such that they were not too surprised at this new ordinance, and in the symbolic terms in which it was couched.

In contrast, the general audience was not used to dealing with figures of speech in explaining Bible truths, for they saw and saw and did not perceive, they heard and heard but did not understand, lest they be saved without faith. These hearers had no appreciation of symbolism in communicationg spiritual precepts.

And so, apparently neither have you been trained sufficiently in hermeneutics and logic, or you wouldn't be saying that we don't understand each other. Even then, it is not clear to you that I do understand you, but either you do not comprehend what I wrote to address your viewpoint, or you do not accept my positions as valid debating arguments.

Is this not so?

(No offense intended, just an observation of the status of our communication and interpretive methods.)

The bottom line is that, through correct interpretation methods, the facts must be that the bread of the memorial supper is not the actual flesh of Jesus' body; and the wine of that ritual is only an emblem of the Blood shed on the Cross, not actually Jesus' exsanguinated Blood; and your Lutheran position on it is not acceptable within the principles and boundaries of accepted literal interpretation. It is arrived at by an out-of-bounds punting of the passages involved.

You go ahead and say that the tokens of the Sacrifice are both real (actual flesh and blood) and at the same really bread and grape juice, which is nonsense. (For instance, the alcoholic content of table wine absolutely rules it out from ever being considered as represented as human blood, let alone being the same as it through some kind of theosophical contortions.) Then you say that that is true that they concurrently exist as being identical (2.(e) above), but to not ask you how because you do NOT know, then immediately aver that (f) you DO know! Isn't that an unreasonable request, and a wholly illogical proposition?

IMHO.