. . . the Real Presence in the Eucharist or another Jesus another gospel.

[robrecht]

No. But rather like believer's immersion [baptism]. Believer's baptism is the believer's burial with Christ, identifying with Christ is His death. Unlike baptism, which is done once after one is saved, the remembrance of Christ's death is done more often, how often depending on the local membership. Neither are matters of salvation. Since salvation is by the grace of God through faith. (Ephesians 2:5; 2:8.)

Playing Bingo in the church basement is not a matter of salvation, 'though the proceeds might be used to feed the poor. You are going pretty far afield to use Ephesians to interpret what Paul says in Corinthians about the cup of blessing being a participation in the blood of Christ.

[37818]

Playing Bingo in the church basement is not a matter of salvation, 'though the proceeds might be used to feed the poor. You are going pretty far afield to use Ephesians to interpret what Paul says in Corinthians about the cup of blessing being a participation in the blood of Christ.

You really do not understand. Ephesians was referenced because salvation is mentioned as a current possession, that is the reason. Romans 8:9 is mentioned because if one does not have the Spirit of Christ, that is the Holy Spirit, one does not belong to Him. 2 Corinthians 13:5 was mentioned that one should make sure one has Jesus in one's life. 1 John 5:12 was mentioned in that the difference between possessing eternal life or no possessing eternal life is whether or not one is in possession of Christ the Son of God. So in order to have the real presences at the time one eats of the Lord's table, one needs to be in the body of Christ to begin with. One can play bingo to help raise money for the poor, but if one is not saved, it counts for nothing. The poor may benefit in this life, but being lost, and dying in that state, one then perishes for all eternity.

[robrecht]

You really do not understand. Ephesians was referenced because salvation is mentioned as a current possession, that is the reason. Romans 8:9 is mentioned because if one does not have the Spirit of Christ, that is the Holy Spirit, one does not belong to Him. 2 Corinthians 13:5 was mentioned that one should make sure one has Jesus in one's life. 1 John 5:12 was mentioned in that the difference between possessing eternal life or no possessing eternal life is whether or not one is in possession of Christ the Son of God. So in order to have the real presences at the time one eats of the Lord's table, one needs to be in the body of Christ to begin with. One can play bingo to help raise money for the poor, but if one is not saved, it counts for nothing. The poor may benefit in this life, but being lost, and dying in that state, one then perishes for all eternity.

But I am not disputing any of that so you may be mistaken to say that I do not understand, I am merely trying to better understand this:

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?"

[TimelessTheist]

1. Yes, I did.
2. Blood must be from a sacrifice but Christ hadn't yet died when He gave this message (John 6:48-58).
AND
That would mean it would be ok to worship it.

1) No, you clearly didn't, because my main point was that Jesus 'reiterated it' after his disciples were confused, and asked him for clarification. Not because he said "indeed".

2)I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

That would mean it would be ok to worship it.

How?

[foudroyant]

http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files...owerhouse.html

[37818]

But I am not disputing any of that so you may be mistaken to say that I do not understand, I am merely trying to better understand this:

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?"

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?"
το ποτηριον της ευλογιας ο ευλογουμεν ουχι κοινωνια του αιματος του χριστου εστιν

The cup of blessing which we bless, does it not represent the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The cup is metaphor for the fellowship of the blood of Christ.

It does not say:
το ποτηριον της ευλογιας ο ευλογουμεν ουχι κοινωνια του αιματος του χριστου

"The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
τον αρτον ον κλωμεν ουχι κοινωνια του σωματος του χριστου εστιν

The bread which we break, does it not represent the fellowship of the body of Christ? The broken bread is a metaphor for the fellowship of the body of Christ.

Again it does not say:
τον αρτον ον κλωμεν ουχι κοινωνια του σωματος του χριστου

[robrecht]

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?"
το ποτηριον της ευλογιας ο ευλογουμεν ουχι κοινωνια του αιματος του χριστου εστιν

The cup of blessing which we bless, does it not represent the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The cup is metaphor for the fellowship of the blood of Christ.

It does not say:
το ποτηριον της ευλογιας ο ευλογουμεν ουχι κοινωνια του αιματος του χριστου

"The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
τον αρτον ον κλωμεν ουχι κοινωνια του σωματος του χριστου εστιν

The bread which we break, does it not represent the fellowship of the body of Christ? The broken bread is a metaphor for the fellowship of the body of Christ.

Again it does not say:
τον αρτον ον κλωμεν ουχι κοινωνια του σωματος του χριστου

Why do you think it matters if the verb 'to be' is used?

[TimelessTheist]

http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files...owerhouse.html

1) Then why were they confused, exactly? And why, when they asked him for clarification, did he just reaffirm it?

2) That doesn't even match up with your original question.

3 Ah, so 'that's what you meant. I must've misunderstood, then.

[foudroyant]

1. They were confused because they thought (as do Roman Catholics) He meant His literal flesh and blood.
In John 4:9-15 the Lord Jesus also spoke of "living water" to the Samaritan woman but even when she spoke the second time to Him about it He still didn't thoroughly correct her misunderstanding.
John later informs us that "living water" refers to the Holy Spirit in John 7:38-39. The same holds true concerning the body and blood of Christ. All are referred to metaphorically.

2. It's awful that worship is rendered unto that which is not God.

[37818]

Why do you think it matters if the verb 'to be' is used?

In Koine Greek the verb is not needed to make direct statements.

πνευμα ο θεος
"God [is] a Spirit: . . ." (John 4:24.)

Where as:
πνευμα ο θεος εστιν
God is a spirit . . . / Would be like saying God is metaphorically a spirit. God is like a spirit. God represents spirit. God means spirit.

ο θεος αγαπη εστιν
". . . God is love. " (1 John 4:8.) / God is not the thing called love.

ο θεος φως εστιν
". . . God is light . . ." (1 John 1:5) / God is not a photon.

[robrecht]

In Koine Greek the verb is not needed to make direct statements.

πνευμα ο θεος
"God [is] a Spirit: . . ." (John 4:24.)

Where as:
πνευμα ο θεος εστιν
God is a spirit . . . / Would be like saying God is metaphorically a spirit. God is like a spirit. God represents spirit. God means spirit.

ο θεος αγαπη εστιν
". . . God is love. " (1 John 4:8.) / God is not the thing called love.

ο θεος φως εστιν
". . . God is light . . ." (1 John 1:5) / God is not a photon.

No, this is not really true. When, in Isaiah 26,9 LXX it is said that God's commandments are light, without the verb 'to be', (φῶς τὰ προστάγματά σου), do you think that means that God's commandments are photons? See also the same expression in the Prayer of Isaiah 5,8. Or when Jesus says in the gospel of Luke, this This cup (is) the new covenant, without the veb 'to be', (Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη), does that mean that the new covenant is literally a cup? Does Paul in 1 Cor 11,25 (with the verb 'to be') mean something different than Luke? Was Jabal not really the father of those who dwell in tents, but only a metaphor (Gen 4,20 LXX)? Likewise Jubal in Gen 4,21 LXX? Are Shem, Ham, and Japheth only metaphors and not truly the sons of Noah (Gen 9:18 LXX)? Etc, etc, etc.

[37818]

No, this is not really true. When, in Isaiah 26,9 LXX it is said that God's commandments are light, without the verb 'to be', (φῶς τὰ προστάγματά σου), do you think that means that God's commandments are photons? See also the same expression in the Prayer of Isaiah 5,8. Or when Jesus says in the gospel of Luke, this This cup (is) the new covenant, without the veb 'to be', (Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη), does that mean that the new covenant is literally a cup? Does Paul in 1 Cor 11,25 (with the verb 'to be') mean something different than Luke? Was Jabal not really the father of those who dwell in tents, but only a metaphor (Gen 4,20 LXX)? Likewise Jubal in Gen 4,21 LXX? Are Shem, Ham, and Japheth only metaphors and not truly the sons of Noah (Gen 9:18 LXX)? Etc, etc, etc.

What applies to NT Koine Greek does not necessary apply in the LXX. For example, the Greek σαββατων sabbaths [plural] is used to mean a "week." This use is unique the the NT. I am not aware of the LXX ever using εστιν for metaphor.

"I just checked, and ἐστιν usage is unique being used in the NT, in that. it is not found in being used in the LXX." Well my check was bad [redid the check]. That verb is used in the LXX over 670 times (671 verses). In the NT that verb is used 900 times.

[robrecht]

What applies to NT Koine Greek does not necessary apply in the LXX. For example, the Greek σαββατων sabbaths [plural] is used to mean a "week." This use is unique the the NT. I am not aware of the LXX ever using εστιν for metaphor.

If you only claim that this particular usage is valid for the New Testament, then look at the most pertinent example in the New Testament that I pointed to:



Do you want to claim that Paul interpreted Jesus' words literally, wheras Luke interpreted them symbolically?

[TimelessTheist]

1. They were confused because they thought (as do Roman Catholics) He meant His literal flesh and blood.
In John 4:9-15 the Lord Jesus also spoke of "living water" to the Samaritan woman but even when she spoke the second time to Him about it He still didn't thoroughly correct her misunderstanding.
John later informs us that "living water" refers to the Holy Spirit in John 7:38-39. The same holds true concerning the body and blood of Christ. All are referred to metaphorically.

That was because he was trying to show her that he was the Messiah by making a parallel. She eventually understood this, and the metaphor in John 4:19. This was not the case with his apostles, however. They already knew he was the Messiah, and they became very confused by his teaching, and showed no sign of understanding it, if it was, indeed, a metaphor as you claim. He explained it to them in the case of the metaphor between the Pharisees and the leavened bread, tell me, why wouldn't he do it here, and for something so important?

2) Question begging. Under Catholic theology, the Eucharist is the body and blood of God.

[foudroyant]

That was because he was trying to show her that he was the Messiah by making a parallel. She eventually understood this, and the metaphor in John 4:19. This was not the case with his apostles, however.

The Apostles also would have eventually understood (at least by the time of the Passover) that the blood and bread could not literally be the Lord Jesus.

Thus the Eucharist is not the body and blood of God. Therefore, it should not be worshiped.