Communion - Wine or Juice - Page 5

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Communion - Wine or Juice (Page 5 of 7)

Posted: 9/13/2010 9:57:32 AM EDT

[#1]

wow, i love this thread.

whiskey is the only thing you should drink on sundays. its in the bible, look it up.

Posted: 9/13/2010 10:04:43 AM EDT

[#2]

Wine.

It says so right there in the Bible.

Posted: 9/13/2010 10:06:39 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ummm.this Lutheran [LCMS] knows that the Body and Blood is represented by the wine and bread.

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod rejects a representational view and believes instead in the Real Presence of Christ. Christ said: "This is My Body. This is My Blood." Therefore it is His Body and Blood.

To refresh your memory, please turn to your Small Catechism.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.

If you have the 1943 edition, turn to question 300.

If you have the 1991 edition, turn to the following questions:

288 - Specifically rejects a representation view.

291 - Affirms again the Real Presence.

Of course, all of the surrounding explanations in the Small Catechism should also be reviewed.

This is most certainly true.

Posted: 9/13/2010 10:09:02 AM EDT

[#4]

Posted: 9/13/2010 10:12:52 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Without question Christ drank wine at the Passover.

He was the ONLY Jew to ever live perfectly under the Law of Moses.

To suggest other than wine is outright lunacy.

Read about Passover.. no leven was allowed in the house during passover.

It HAD to be wine, or it transgressed this basic Mosaic Law. Wine has NO leven in it, whereas grapejuice does.

Now, this is where the 1800s penchant for anti drinking came into play.. most specifically in the SBC. They turned to pasteurized grape juice ie Welches grape juice to fulfill the "spirit" of what Christ said but NOT the "letter".

Now, to place a stumbling block before a fellow Christian is wrong, yet where in the Bible does it allow a Christian to tell Christ that his symbols are wrong or dangerous?

The thimble sized serving of wine given out during observance of the Lord's Supper will not and cannot cause a normal Christian to turn into a raving alcoholic.

To condemn or alter the use of wine in the Lord's Supper is a level of anti Christian thinking that I cannot ever condone or promote. Those who do so, literally are telling Christ that the symbol he chose for HIS blood is wrong or inappropriate.

Wow... telling God he is wrong... yeah.. I will just step wayyy over here out of the impact zone on that one.

Remember folks, evil comes "out" of the mouth... NOT from what you put "in". It is paraphrasing scripture, but simply put, evil comes from inside you, wine is no more evil or dangerous than a full auto weapon. Yet some would have us believe that a happy switch is inherently evil.

The same premise.

Good post. I have fond memeries sitting around a table or grill with my brothers and sisters (blood and spiritual) injoying dinner and a glass of wine. Great conversation and time spent with loved ones.

While I agree with almost all of Dramborleg's post, the part in red I take issue with just because you seem to be taking a very legalistic view of the ritual. Almost to the point that I would expect you to say that "You're doing it wrong if you don't use wine."

I think Jesus used bread and wine because that's what was on the table. I don't think the bread and wine are significant in and of themselves. The point is rememberance. If a calamity wiped out our grape and wheat harvests, would we be unable to engage in the ritual of communion? To think contrary starts to border on idolotry to me. It starts to sound a bit like justification by works.

And that bothers me as a Christian because so much of the portrayal of Christianity, if it's ever portrayed in the sense of having any real power, ends up being reduced to some recitation of the right holy words (a spell!) or the use of some relic with some self-contained power that operates irrespective of the morality of the wielder.

So I agree that teaching falsehood or false doctrine is wrong, and I think temperance churces engage in that all too frequently, but nor do I believe someone who elects to use some other element is somehow not in communion or not engaged in a rememberance.

Posted: 9/13/2010 11:16:07 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Without question Christ drank wine at the Passover.

He was the ONLY Jew to ever live perfectly under the Law of Moses.

To suggest other than wine is outright lunacy.

Read about Passover.. no leven was allowed in the house during passover.

It HAD to be wine, or it transgressed this basic Mosaic Law. Wine has NO leven in it, whereas grapejuice does.

Now, this is where the 1800s penchant for anti drinking came into play.. most specifically in the SBC. They turned to pasteurized grape juice ie Welches grape juice to fulfill the "spirit" of what Christ said but NOT the "letter".

Now, to place a stumbling block before a fellow Christian is wrong, yet where in the Bible does it allow a Christian to tell Christ that his symbols are wrong or dangerous?

The thimble sized serving of wine given out during observance of the Lord's Supper will not and cannot cause a normal Christian to turn into a raving alcoholic.

To condemn or alter the use of wine in the Lord's Supper is a level of anti Christian thinking that I cannot ever condone or promote. Those who do so, literally are telling Christ that the symbol he chose for HIS blood is wrong or inappropriate.

Wow... telling God he is wrong... yeah.. I will just step wayyy over here out of the impact zone on that one.

Remember folks, evil comes "out" of the mouth... NOT from what you put "in". It is paraphrasing scripture, but simply put, evil comes from inside you, wine is no more evil or dangerous than a full auto weapon. Yet some would have us believe that a happy switch is inherently evil.

The same premise.

Good post. I have fond memeries sitting around a table or grill with my brothers and sisters (blood and spiritual) injoying dinner and a glass of wine. Great conversation and time spent with loved ones.

While I agree with almost all of Dramborleg's post, the part in red I take issue with just because you seem to be taking a very legalistic view of the ritual. Almost to the point that I would expect you to say that "You're doing it wrong if you don't use wine."

I think Jesus used bread and wine because that's what was on the table. I don't think the bread and wine are significant in and of themselves. The point is rememberance. If a calamity wiped out our grape and wheat harvests, would we be unable to engage in the ritual of communion? To think contrary starts to border on idolotry to me. It starts to sound a bit like justification by works.

And that bothers me as a Christian because so much of the portrayal of Christianity, if it's ever portrayed in the sense of having any real power, ends up being reduced to some recitation of the right holy words (a spell!) or the use of some relic with some self-contained power that operates irrespective of the morality of the wielder.

So I agree that teaching falsehood or false doctrine is wrong, and I think temperance churces engage in that all too frequently, but nor do I believe someone who elects to use some other element is somehow not in communion or not engaged in a rememberance.

It never ceases to amaze me how we strive to make what is a really simple religion terribly difficult. The beauty of Christianity is in part it's simplicity and common-sense approach to living. There are those who are striving to make it into something it is not. This thread is chock full of that.

Oh, and of course it was wine. Preachers who do mental gymnastics to say otherwise are wasting precious time.

Posted: 9/13/2010 11:40:12 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

http://dailyshite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/eliminated-all-the-juice.jpg

Is it bad that I chuckled at that one?

Posted: 9/13/2010 11:46:39 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Despite his best efforts, unsuccessful troll is utterly unsuccessful. So proud of Arfcom GD right now.

Simple question: Is cannibalism, the act of eating human flesh, immoral?

Despite your best efforts, so great is the rift that you cannot truthfully answer this one question without offending a few million of your fellow christians.

Except it isn't human. It is God's. Not cannabilism. Nice try.

Posted: 9/13/2010 1:53:04 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Naturally, I don't actually share his view (I have to side with my rational mind on this one), but I do admire his adherence to scripture, AS WRITTEN.

Let me state something:

I think transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, are absurd (no offense intended, especially to my Lutheran friends) . Yes, I know what it says - but the funny thing is that this, of all places, is the one place that some groups insist on 'literal' interpretation, refusing to allow for the notion of using figures of speech. The Bible is chock full of such figures of speech, and the portions spoken by Christ are not exception. Having said that, it's really not relevant to the question the OP asked. Here's my answer to that.

Every church I've ever been to used grape juice. I had some yesterday. But I think it's a silly practice that's the result of man-made tradition; I just don't think it's worth the division it would cause to make an issue out of it. And besides, I just flat-out don't like wine.

Lutherans are often falsely accused of believing in consubstantiation. We do not. Reject it as false.

First, here is a quotation from a Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod Cyclopedia, CPH:

LINK TO CPH HERE

View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner. See also Grace, Means of, IV 3.

It is one thing when Lutherans deny that they believe in consubstantiation, it is entirely another when a scholar of another theological perspective also denies that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation and notes that we are falsely charged with this belief. Dr. Richard A. Muller, a Reformed theologian, writes the following in his book, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. Please note especially the Italicized text. For a non-Lutheran he does a very good job of explaining our beliefs.

consubstantiatio: consubstantiation; viz, a doctrine of Christ's sacramental presence in the Eucharist developed in the Middle Ages as an alternative to theories of substantial alteration of the elements either by annihilation or transformation of the substance of the bread and wine. According to the theory of consubstantiation, the body and blood of Christ become substantially present together with the substance of the bread and wine, when the elements are Consecrated. The theory is frequently confused with the Lutheran doctrine of real presence. Consubstantiatio indicates the presence of Christ's body according to a unique sacramental mode of presence that is proper to Christ's body as such, and is therefore a local presence (praesentia localis, q.v.) , the Lutheran view, however, argues a real, but illocal presence of Christ's body and blood that is grounded in the omnipresence of Christ's person, and therefore a supernatural and sacramental, rather than a local, union with the visible elements of the sacrament. A concept related to consubstantiatio is that of impanatio, or impanation, indicating the presence of Christ's body in the bread (in pane). Here, too, the bread remains and Christ's body becomes present with it, but, as propounded by its medieval proponent Guitmund of Aversa, impanatio implies a hypostatic or personal union of Christ with the bread. With reference to the wine this theory is called invinatio, invination. Consubstantiatio implies only a presence with and not a union of Christ and the sacramental elements; it was taught as a possibility by Duns Scotus, John of Jandun, and William of Occam. SEE praesentia illocalis sive definitiva; praesentia realis; transubstantiatio; ubiquitas; unio personalis: unio sacramentalis. [Italic emphassis added]

I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran. I believe in the Real Presence of Christ, not consubstantiation, just as the Reformed theologian Dr. Muller writes.

Neither do we believe in substituting elements in the Sacraments. Water for Baptism and bread and wine (grape wine only!) for Communion.

Edited for a typo.

Thanks for posting that. I honestly didn't know that, and I promise you, it's not something I wish to quibble over.

Posted: 9/13/2010 2:00:45 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Despite his best efforts, unsuccessful troll is utterly unsuccessful. So proud of Arfcom GD right now.

Simple question: Is cannibalism, the act of eating human flesh, immoral?

Despite your best efforts, so great is the rift that you cannot truthfully answer this one question without offending a few million of your fellow christians.

Except it isn't human. It is God's. Not cannabilism. Nice try.

So are you saying that Jesus was actually God, and therefore not human when he was crucified?

Posted: 9/13/2010 2:02:41 PM EDT

[#11]

Wine.

I keep seeing this thread pop up and without fail I read " communism: wine or juice"

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 9/13/2010 2:02:58 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Thanks for posting that. I honestly didn't know that, and I promise you, it's not something I wish to quibble over.

I didn't think that you were aware of the LC-MS, and WELS, and ELS opposition to consubstantiation. Very few people are.

Posted: 9/13/2010 5:29:51 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Simple question: Is cannibalism, the act of eating human flesh, immoral?

Cannibalism is actually never condemned in the Bible any more than the eating of any other unclean animal was. Not once.
Murder is , of course; and it is difficult for most to separate the two issues. But cannibalism is not condemned for non-Israelites in the Bible.

The ball is in your court.

Posted: 9/13/2010 5:34:59 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Your confusion is due to protestantism's discarding and complete forgetting of what the Mass is: the unbloody sacrifice of Christ made present to us upon the altar.

Have you ever read the book of Hebrews?
Let me help:

9:26He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

10:8Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, £O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

We haven't forgotten or discarded anything.

Posted: 9/13/2010 5:35:50 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Simple question: Is cannibalism, the act of eating human flesh, immoral?

Cannibalism is actually never condemned in the Bible any more than the eating of any other unclean animal was. Not once.
Murder is , of course; and it is difficult for most to separate the two issues. But cannibalism is not condemned for non-Israelites in the Bible.

The ball is in your court.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT WINE OR JUICE

TAKE THIS JUNK TO ANOTHER THREAD

Posted: 9/13/2010 5:40:31 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Simple question: Is cannibalism, the act of eating human flesh, immoral?

Cannibalism is actually never condemned in the Bible any more than the eating of any other unclean animal was. Not once.
Murder is , of course; and it is difficult for most to separate the two issues. But cannibalism is not condemned for non-Israelites in the Bible.

The ball is in your court.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT WINE OR JUICE

TAKE THIS JUNK TO ANOTHER THREAD

No.
I already answered your question, now I am answering the idiot.

Posted: 9/13/2010 6:27:43 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://dailyshite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/eliminated-all-the-juice.jpg

Is it bad that I chuckled at that one?

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would dress their kid like that . . .

Posted: 9/13/2010 7:24:48 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Simple question: Is cannibalism, the act of eating human flesh, immoral?

Cannibalism is actually never condemned in the Bible any more than the eating of any other unclean animal was. Not once.
Murder is , of course; and it is difficult for most to separate the two issues. But cannibalism is not condemned for non-Israelites in the Bible.

The ball is in your court.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT WINE OR JUICE

TAKE THIS JUNK TO ANOTHER THREAD

Relax dude...I'm just asking questions.

No.
I already answered your question, now I am answering the idiot.

Idiot huh? Look Homer, in a battle of wits, you are an unarmed opponent. Let's keep from the personal insults and stick to the question and answer. It's the "Christian" thing to do, isn't it?

Now, it looks like you're saying that cannibalism isn't immoral. Am I understanding you correctly?

Posted: 9/13/2010 7:33:34 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Wine.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 9/13/2010 8:05:20 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Idiot huh? Look Homer, in a battle of wits, you are an unarmed opponent...

The sort of idiot who thinks Christianity is into 'ritual cannibalism' doesn't have the standing s to insult other people intelligence. Not saying that is you, but you know exactly the sort of ridiculously asinine fool I am talking about..

Posted: 9/13/2010 8:09:14 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Idiot huh? Look Homer, in a battle of wits, you are an unarmed opponent...

The sort of idiot who thinks Christianity is into 'ritual cannibalism' doesn't have the standing s to insult other people intelligence. Not saying that is you, but you know exactly the sort of ridiculously asinine fool I am talking about..

Well then, maybe you can tell me what the difference is between cannibalism, and eating the flesh of Jesus? Come on...show me how smart you are.

Posted: 9/13/2010 8:10:53 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I'm not trying to start an argument or be offensive, but isn't it time people recognize this ritual for what it is (ritual cannibalism) and consign it to the dust-bins of history? Doesn't it make you the least bit uncomfortable pretending to eat the flesh and drink the blood of another human? Seriously, I'm just curious, and would like your opinions without squabbling over who's right and who's wrong.

Knock it off dude. Next thing you know you'll be explaining how the church (yes there is only one) co-opted all of teh really fun pagan holidays to convince the yokels that christianity was really ok.

Posted: 9/13/2010 8:11:17 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

I was at church today and Communion was served,

and I was just thinking what others thought.

Do you believe it was Wine or Juice that Christ used in Communion?

That Christ used? Wine. It was a dinner meal, he would have used the items customarily consumed at dinner (dinner bread, a cup of wine, etc)...

And it's drunkenness, not 'drinking' that the Bible condemned...

I've never been at a church that serves wine, I have seen variations on the bread from crackers to a loaf of actual bread.

Posted: 9/13/2010 8:13:48 PM EDT

[#24]

oops, I thought the question was about what my church uses.

I said juice, then I read the last line of the post.

I really don't think it matters whether either is used.

Posted: 9/13/2010 8:15:36 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Idiot huh? Look Homer, in a battle of wits, you are an unarmed opponent...

The sort of idiot who thinks Christianity is into 'ritual cannibalism' doesn't have the standing s to insult other people intelligence. Not saying that is you, but you know exactly the sort of ridiculously asinine fool I am talking about..

Various denominations that believe various things about what happens to the wine/juice and bread after it's eaten aside, it's not in any way 'ritual cannibalisim'.

If we ate actual human flesh & drank blood as part of the ritual, sure...

However, we don't.

We repeat a ritual that involves grape juice (fermented or not, varies by church) and bread, to remember Christ preparing to die for our sins, our part in causing his death, and our salvation in his resurrection.

Posted: 9/13/2010 8:15:38 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Idiot huh? Look Homer, in a battle of wits, you are an unarmed opponent...

The sort of idiot who thinks Christianity is into 'ritual cannibalism' doesn't have the standing s to insult other people intelligence. Not saying that is you, but you know exactly the sort of ridiculously asinine fool I am talking about..

Well then, maybe you can tell me what the difference is between cannibalism, and eating the flesh of Jesus? Come on...show me how smart you are.

Sure thing! I'm all about helping those with 'difficulties' understand not very complicated concepts!

Cannibalism: Literally eating human meat.

Communion: Not cannibalism.

But of course, you aren't a retard, and you damned well know the above. You're just trolling.

Posted: 9/13/2010 8:34:02 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Idiot huh? Look Homer, in a battle of wits, you are an unarmed opponent...

The sort of idiot who thinks Christianity is into 'ritual cannibalism' doesn't have the standing s to insult other people intelligence. Not saying that is you, but you know exactly the sort of ridiculously asinine fool I am talking about..

Well then, maybe you can tell me what the difference is between cannibalism, and eating the flesh of Jesus? Come on...show me how smart you are.

Sure thing! I'm all about helping those with 'difficulties' understand not very complicated concepts!

Cannibalism: Literally eating human meat.

Communion: Not cannibalism.

But of course, you aren't a retard, and you damned well know the above. You're just trolling.

What about denominations that actually believe that the bread undergoes some sort of transmogrification process as it's consumed? Are they wrong, or am I misunderstanding? What about the whole "Blood of Christ...Body of Christ" thing? Don't some denominations actually believe they are eating and drinking the blood and flesh of Jesus? Wasn't Jesus human?

Posted: 9/13/2010 8:42:35 PM EDT

[#28]

Wine.

I don't have an issue with folks who use juice instead since I'm one of those people who doesn't take the bible literally. I do think that people who take the bible literaly and as a word for wordrecitation ofGod's message then use juice are hypocrites. Really not trying to stirshit up, I don't know if that is a common belief. I had a staunch creationist tell me that the earth was 6000 years old because the bible said so, but when it said Jesus drank wine it really meant juice.

Posted: 9/13/2010 8:50:30 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Idiot huh? Look Homer, in a battle of wits, you are an unarmed opponent. Let's keep from the personal insults and stick to the question and answer. It's the "Christian" thing to do, isn't it?

You don't know me, so don't go there.

Now, it looks like you're saying that cannibalism isn't immoral. Am I understanding you correctly?

Not capable of reading what I wrote, eh?
I guess you're the unarmed one.

OP, sorry for allowing this nonsense to trash your thread. I'll ignore him from now on.

Posted: 9/13/2010 9:03:17 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Idiot huh? Look Homer, in a battle of wits, you are an unarmed opponent. Let's keep from the personal insults and stick to the question and answer. It's the "Christian" thing to do, isn't it?

You don't know me, so don't go there.

Now, it looks like you're saying that cannibalism isn't immoral. Am I understanding you correctly?

Not capable of reading what I wrote, eh?
I guess you're the unarmed one.

OP, sorry for allowing this nonsense to trash your thread. I'll ignore him from now on.

Actually my reading comprehension is pretty good. It was your answer that was lacking. It wasn't really a "yes" or "no"; you just stated that cannibalism wasn't "condemned" in the Bible. So does that mean it's OK or not?

Posted: 9/13/2010 9:03:22 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Idiot huh? Look Homer, in a battle of wits, you are an unarmed opponent...

The sort of idiot who thinks Christianity is into 'ritual cannibalism' doesn't have the standing s to insult other people intelligence. Not saying that is you, but you know exactly the sort of ridiculously asinine fool I am talking about..

Well then, maybe you can tell me what the difference is between cannibalism, and eating the flesh of Jesus? Come on...show me how smart you are.

Sure thing! I'm all about helping those with 'difficulties' understand not very complicated concepts!

Cannibalism: Literally eating human meat.

Communion: Not cannibalism.

But of course, you aren't a retard, and you damned well know the above. You're just trolling.

What about denominations that actually believe that the bread undergoes some sort of transmogrification process as it's consumed? Are they wrong, or am I misunderstanding? What about the whole "Blood of Christ...Body of Christ" thing? Don't some denominations actually believe they are eating and drinking the blood and flesh of Jesus? Wasn't Jesus human?

Well, just in case you are actually serious in your inquiry and not just trying to stir the pot, I'll chime in.

I'm Catholic. I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When Catholics say that the bread becomes the body of Christ, they are talking about the glorified body of Christ. Immediately after Jesus said "whoever eats me will live because of me" (Jn 6:58) He says "what if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" (Jn 6:62)

Catholics feel he is explaining that his body will be changed into a glorified body (such as is described in 1 Cor 15:40) his body became glorified at the ascension. This passage of John foreshadows the ascension. And this is how Jesus clarified himself and made the distinction between his mortal body (Cannibalistic concept) and his Glorified body (Eucharistic concept).

The glorified body of Christ was the revelation of his true nature as the Incarnate God. That is what we receive.

It is a very difficult teaching. It was difficult for his followers to believe even when the words came from His own mouth, so it is not surprising for some to not believe it today.

Peace

Posted: 9/13/2010 9:09:40 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ummm.this Lutheran [LCMS] knows that the Body and Blood is represented by the wine and bread.

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod rejects a representational view and believes instead in the Real Presence of Christ. Christ said: "This is My Body. This is My Blood." Therefore it is His Body and Blood.

To refresh your memory, please turn to your Small Catechism.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.

If you have the 1943 edition, turn to question 300.

If you have the 1991 edition, turn to the following questions:

288 - Specifically rejects a representation view.
291 - Affirms again the Real Presence.

Of course, all of the surrounding explanations in the Small Catechism should also be reviewed.

I probably could have worded that differently.....your are correct.

Posted: 9/13/2010 9:13:34 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

I probably could have worded that differently.....your are correct.

Good to clear that up.

Language can be a tricky thing.

Have a good evening.

Posted: 9/13/2010 10:11:12 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Idiot huh? Look Homer, in a battle of wits, you are an unarmed opponent...

The sort of idiot who thinks Christianity is into 'ritual cannibalism' doesn't have the standing s to insult other people intelligence. Not saying that is you, but you know exactly the sort of ridiculously asinine fool I am talking about..

Well then, maybe you can tell me what the difference is between cannibalism, and eating the flesh of Jesus? Come on...show me how smart you are.

Sure thing! I'm all about helping those with 'difficulties' understand not very complicated concepts!

Cannibalism: Literally eating human meat.

Communion: Not cannibalism.

But of course, you aren't a retard, and you damned well know the above. You're just trolling.

What about denominations that actually believe that the bread undergoes some sort of transmogrification process as it's consumed? Are they wrong, or am I misunderstanding? What about the whole "Blood of Christ...Body of Christ" thing? Don't some denominations actually believe they are eating and drinking the blood and flesh of Jesus? Wasn't Jesus human?

Well, just in case you are actually serious in your inquiry and not just trying to stir the pot, I'll chime in.

I'm Catholic. I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When Catholics say that the bread becomes the body of Christ, they are talking about the glorified body of Christ. Immediately after Jesus said "whoever eats me will live because of me" (Jn 6:58) He says "what if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" (Jn 6:62)

Catholics feel he is explaining that his body will be changed into a glorified body (such as is described in 1 Cor 15:40) his body became glorified at the ascension. This passage of John foreshadows the ascension. And this is how Jesus clarified himself and made the distinction between his mortal body (Cannibalistic concept) and his Glorified body (Eucharistic concept).

The glorified body of Christ was the revelation of his true nature as the Incarnate God. That is what we receive.

It is a very difficult teaching. It was difficult for his followers to believe even when the words came from His own mouth, so it is not surprising for some to not believe it today.

Peace

Thank you. Peace.

Posted: 9/13/2010 10:21:39 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
I was actually told by someone,a deacon or the Church of God, that " wine wasn't alcoholic in the time of Christ" and hence was the reason for using juice.

I'm a teetotaler to being with but was a little

at this proclamation.

I'm trying to come up with a way to address a statement THAT stupid, but all I can muster is, "Uh, NO." Wine has been alcoholic since wine was invented.

Posted: 9/13/2010 11:23:36 PM EDT

[#36]

I have a friend that believes the no leaven part of the passover means no wine. I have to wonder though, If the passover happens in the spring, (which is does) and grapes are harvested near fall, (which they are), how do they keep the fresh juice from fermenting on its own, as wild yeasts live upon the skins of grapes. The area where Christ was is not known for its cold environment. Keeping the juice from fermenting would be almost impossible, especially for almost a years time.

Posted: 9/14/2010 3:35:06 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
What about denominations that actually believe that the bread undergoes some sort of transmogrification process as it's consumed?

Woah woah woah woah woah... maybe we have it all wrong.

Maybe what Christ meant was, "I am made of bread and wine". That would be sinlessly delicious!

Man, I should always have these brownies for breakfast...

Posted: 9/14/2010 3:42:06 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Despite his best efforts, unsuccessful troll is utterly unsuccessful. So proud of Arfcom GD right now.

You may have spoke too soon . . .

Posted: 9/14/2010 3:48:54 AM EDT

[#39]

As a Christian, some here need to re-read their Bible. For the non-believers, you should troll elsewhere. It's getting really annoying.

Posted: 9/14/2010 5:06:50 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

I think Jesus used bread and wine because that's what was on the table. I don't think the bread and wine are significant in and of themselves. The point is rememberance. If a calamity wiped out our grape and wheat harvests, would we be unable to engage in the ritual of communion? To think contrary starts to border on idolotry to me. It starts to sound a bit like justification by works.

I don't think this view is entirely right. Wine is a consistent symbol in Jesus' teaching and ministry. He turned water into wine. He head was annointed with wine. (ETA: Sorry, faulty memory on my part, disregard the annointing comment.) Several of his parables involved winepresses. When he was crucified, the gall was mixed with wine. Clearly, wine is significant. Had Jesus instructed his disciples to drink water to remember him, the symbolism would be all wrong.

Go back to Jesus' first miracle. He turned water into wine. And it wasn't just any water. It was the water "after the manner of the purification of the Jews." Go back to the old testament and read about the burned up red heifer and the ashes mixed with water. That's the water he turned to wine. The point was that the ritualistic water of the Law could not heal a man's soul, but the "water" that Jesus brought (his spirit, or grace) could make a man whole. He chose wine to picture this deeper spirit for a reason. Wine is potent. It has an effect on the drinker. Jesus' spirit is like that, too. Also, it may be significant that water was a pretty risky drink in those days. Who knows what microrganisms or bacteria was swimming around in the water. Maybe this is analogous to the spirit of the world, full of evil and false ideas.

No, the choice of wine was intentional and significant. Read the scriptures with an eye toward symbolic consistency and you'll soon see references to water, wine, blood, etc. begin to form a pattern.

ETA: if you're tempted to dismiss this liquid as spirit symbolism, consider John 7:
"[38] He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
[39] (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive . . . )"

Posted: 9/14/2010 12:46:42 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I think Jesus used bread and wine because that's what was on the table. I don't think the bread and wine are significant in and of themselves. The point is rememberance. If a calamity wiped out our grape and wheat harvests, would we be unable to engage in the ritual of communion? To think contrary starts to border on idolotry to me. It starts to sound a bit like justification by works.

I don't think this view is entirely right. Wine is a consistent symbol in Jesus' teaching and ministry. He turned water into wine. He head was annointed with wine. Several of his parables involved winepresses. When he was crucified, the gall was mixed with wine. Clearly, wine is significant. Had Jesus instructed his disciples to drink water to remember him, the symbolism would be all wrong.

Go back to Jesus' first miracle. He turned water into wine. And it wasn't just any water. It was the water "after the manner of the purification of the Jews." Go back to the old testament and read about the burned up red heifer and the ashes mixed with water. That's the water he turned to wine. The point was that the ritualistic water of the Law could not heal a man's soul, but the "water" that Jesus brought (his spirit, or grace) could make a man whole. He chose wine to picture this deeper spirit for a reason. Wine is potent. It has an effect on the drinker. Jesus' spirit is like that, too. Also, it may be significant that water was a pretty risky drink in those days. Who knows what microrganisms or bacteria was swimming around in the water. Maybe this is analogous to the spirit of the world, full of evil and false ideas.

No, the choice of wine was intentional and significant. Read the scriptures with an eye toward symbolic consistency and you'll soon see references to water, wine, blood, etc. begin to form a pattern.

ETA: if you're tempted to dismiss this liquid as spirit symbolism, consider John 7:
"[38] He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
[39] (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive . . . )"

Reference for this?

Posted: 9/14/2010 12:53:44 PM EDT

[#42]

Having juice instead of wine for communion is sort of like having John instead of Jane marry Steve in the church...

Posted: 9/14/2010 1:00:05 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
I was at church today and Communion was served,
and I was just thinking what others thought.

Do you believe it was Wine or Juice that Christ used in Communion?

I have no idea, but I felt betrayed when as a kid I saw them making up the communion drink out of Welch's grape juice in the church basement. WTF!?

Posted: 9/14/2010 1:00:05 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
I was at church today and Communion was served,
and I was just thinking what others thought.

Do you believe it was Wine or Juice that Christ used in Communion?

I have no idea, but I felt betrayed when as a kid I saw them making up the communion drink out of Welch's grape juice in the church basement. WTF!?

Posted: 9/14/2010 1:01:51 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
My United Church of Christ church offers the choice of wine(Mogen David) or grape juice(Welch's white grape)

What kind of a crap choice is that? It should be a good wine and at least a one ounce pour.

Posted: 9/14/2010 1:10:18 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Wine.

It says so right there in the Bible.

Yep. Wine just wasn't always fermented in Biblical times. Jesus did not drink fermented wine.

Posted: 9/14/2010 1:13:18 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Your confusion is due to protestantism's discarding and complete forgetting of what the Mass is: the unbloody sacrifice of Christ made present to us upon the altar.

Have you ever read the book of Hebrews?

Posted: 9/14/2010 1:14:15 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:Yep. Wine just wasn't always fermented in Biblical times. Jesus did not drink fermented wine.

I think that is unlikely and revisionist. No refrigeration. Natural yeast easily takes hold after a day or so. Most likely wine with contaminant yeast or bacteria so the flavor quality was poor.

Posted: 9/14/2010 1:18:20 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Your confusion is due to protestantism's discarding and complete forgetting of what the Mass is: the unbloody sacrifice of Christ made present to us upon the altar.

Have you ever read the book of Hebrews?

Now you've gone and done it

BTW my wife is a Former Catholic (I'm protestant)

Posted: 9/14/2010 1:21:26 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I think Jesus used bread and wine because that's what was on the table. I don't think the bread and wine are significant in and of themselves. The point is rememberance. If a calamity wiped out our grape and wheat harvests, would we be unable to engage in the ritual of communion? To think contrary starts to border on idolotry to me. It starts to sound a bit like justification by works.

I don't think this view is entirely right. Wine is a consistent symbol in Jesus' teaching and ministry. He turned water into wine. He head was annointed with wine. . . . .

Reference for this?

Good catch on your part. I'm a bit rusty on this stuff. I was remembering wine, but it was actually ointment. Jesus was not annointed with wine, as far as we know. The overall point still remains, though. He used wine specifically in his teachings to make a point. There are many other examples (new wine in old bottles, for example).

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Communion - Wine or Juice (Page 5 of 7)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us