There's one thing I don't understand about Fundamentalists. They all claim to be Biblical literalist, like they believe in young earth creationism, they interpret prophecy literally, they believe the Bible teaches science, they hold the Bible to he 100% infallible in every matter even those outside of faith & morals. Yet for some reason they suddenly become rationalists when it comes to things like the Eucharist, which they believe to only be a symbol for Jesus's body and blood despite him clearly saying otherwise in John 6:55. They also, for example, reject the notion that baptism is necessary for salvation even though the Bible on numerous occasions say it is like in 1 Peter 3:21 and Mark 16:16. I don't get it, why do they hate the sacraments so much? What is the reason for it?
There's one thing I don't understand about Fundamentalists. They all claim to be Biblical literalist...
Stupid question from a protestant who only learned the real presence was something anyone believed through this board because their church uses grape juice:
Obviously God has the power to make the Eucharist the real flesh and blood of Christ. But is it supposed to taste like flesh and blood, or still like bread and wine?
because they don't have the proper context of interpretation, and don't even have a full bible.
I would love to see you get in to a theological debate with Robert jeffress. You'd shut up pretty quick.
Strawman and leading question
"Literalist" is a term usually aimed at putting Christians in a negative light, as if to say "he actually believes the Bible is true". Nobody claims the Bible is free from metaphor and allegory. We "fundamentalists" use the historical-grammatical method in hermeneutics.
We're not "rationalists" as if to say we deny the supernatural, our doctrine of inerrancy doesn't allow for internal contradictions and the only consistent position is sola fide.
Do you actually think all evangelicals (that's a huge majority of trained theologians) are just deceivers? That's the way you're framing it. I don't think that about baby baptizers, I just think they're wrong.
By talking about giving his flesh, he is talking about the coming sacrifice of his life.
The communion was to commemorate this sacrifice:
When he was first talking about giving his flesh, they didn't even know or believe he was going to die soon. They had always heard of the messiah as a conqueror. So of course people were confused. It was not uncommon for the Pharisees and even the disciples to misunderstand him. He often spoke in parables. We observe the communion 'in remembrance' of him.
Nobody interprets Bible prophecy completely literally. For example, when Revelation talks about the moon turning into blood, everyone realizes this is absurd in a literal sense and instead interpret it as, for example, some sort of eclipse or supernatural event that turns the moon red. In the same manner, people recognize that Jesus transforming into a literal loaf of bread is absurd. People recognize that the idea that what looks like a wafer according to every method of observation known to man is secretly literal human flesh is absurd.
This does not address the issue of transubstantiation. Catholics would say the same, and in fact, at every mass they do.
And we would say the same things Catholics do about it being the body and blood of Christ. We do so every time. We just don't interpret this literally as you do.
Is it really any more absurd than Jesus resurrecting from the dead, walking on water, curing blindness with saliva, or healing a paralytic with his words? Jesus turned water into wine, so why not wine into blood?
Yes, it really is more absurd than all of those. Name a NT miracle besides the alleged transubstantiation that isn't accompanied by the obvious recognition of the witnesses.
Bible says don't get circumcised
Are you denying that Jesus Christ on the last supper, with 12 other witnesses that he didn't turn the bread into his body and the wine into his blood?
Bruh. There were 12 witnesses at the Last Supper.
He certainly could turn wine into blood. But we looked into it, and it's not literal blood. When Jesus turned water to wine, it tasted like wine. It looked like wine. People could get drunk off it. But this wine that supposedly was turned into blood… It's not literal blood. If you taste it, it tastes like wine. If you smell it, it smells like wine. If you test it's mineral content, it will be the mineral content of wine, not blood. It will contain the resveratol and polyphenols of wine. If you drink enough of it, you'll probably get drunk. If you put a vampire bat in a room with a glass of communion wine and a glass of blood he will probably go for the blood. If you put a fruit bat in the same room he will probably go for the communion wine. I'm not a laundry expert, but I'm willing to bet that if there are any tricks for getting blood stains out that don't work on wine, they also won't work on communion wine. If you eat nothing but flesh and blood for a week your body will go into ketosis. If you eat lots of communion wafers and communion wine for a week, probably not. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea by now.
At this point you might say 'But God could make the blood look and taste and smell and stain and have the chemical composition of wine, and still really be blood'! I guess.. But then what attribute does it have that makes it 'really' be blood at that point? It reminds me of the more naive type of creationists who say God made dinosaur bones to test our faith, or made the earth look old to test our faith. The blood and flesh being symbolic seems a much more sensible explanation to me.
...
Correct! People in positions that require charisma often have a way of arguing that shut up people, there are a lot of Feminists that can make people "shut up pretty quick", despite their shaky foundations and philosophy.
You replied to OP by "[logical fallacy] and [logical fallacy]" and then left the doubts relatively unchecked. Seems you just want him to shut up.
You also seem to be getting awfully defensive that someone isn't asking things in real life instead of over the internet. Its the same either way, isn't it?
So you're saying it's physically wine.. but also not physically wine? I have no idea what you mean and I'm not sure you do either. In what sense is it blood? Be specific. Did it pour out of Christ's body? What is blood but the fluid that comes from inside a physical body? I have no idea what it would mean for something to be 'metaphysically' blood or 'spiritually' blood. I'm open-minded so explain it if you want (but don't just link to something by Augustine or whoever, tell me in your own words).
The physical isn't truly phsyical. Metaphysics wise, it's the actual blood of Christ that is consumed. He was able to turn the wine into blood metaphysically.
Metaphysical is basically the fundamentals change.
They don't interpret prophecy literally. They apply most of it to themselves instead.
As for sacraments.. that's just carryover from all Protestantism. They've lost all touch with the sacramental nature of Christianity.
And just because one is rationalist doesn't mean one is "logical" per se. Rationalism is reliance on a mental model and being consistent with it. It doesn't mean it incorporates anything outside that model that might make them reconsider. This goes for anything rationalist (philosophers, theoretical scientists, etc).
I'll be honest with you, I have no idea what this word salad is supposed to mean. What is metaphysical blood? Is blood not a bodily fluid, by definition? Did the communion wine come out of Jesus' physical body? If not, how is it blood?
The wine turns to blood because the fundementals are changed and it becomes blood.
Come on, are you honestly dicking around or do you not understand?
Both Protestants who neglect the sacraments and Catholics who try to turn it into a science are troublesome. Just embrace the mystery, and do what Jesus tells us. "Take, eat". Don't stare at it, adore, talk about it, or neglect it.
I honestly don't understand. Don't act like that's odd, I'm pretty sure 99% of people wouldn't even pretend to understand what you just said. By the fundamentals changing do you mean God just changed his definition of what blood is to include the wine? Heck, if that's transubstantiation maybe even I can buy into it.
I didn't stutter, that's what it means.
Uh okay. But by the dictionary's definition, it is still wine, right? So by the definition the vast majority of people use for the words blood and wine, it would be accurate to say it's wine and not blood. But.. as Christians we should accept God's definition, which is different? It's all a little confusing and I'm not sure of the practical difference of saying it is a symbol vs. it is blood according to a definition of blood that most people don't use. I'll think on it.
Don't. It's a mystery. If you think too much, you'll fall in the same trap as Catholics, and rely on some heathen philosopher to build a scientific model for you… in which case, you'll be attaching the mysteries of God to some crap that will be outdated in no time.. but at that point, your church shot itself in the foot by also dogmatizing the matter, forever attaching themselves to some faggot's limited understanding of both science or religion (or who wasn't even a Christian to begin with).
If I wanted to be that stupid in the "here and now", I could say that the sacraments could be compared to Quantum mechanics and "spooky action at a distance", where Jesus' blood and sacramental wine are quantumly entangled, and in effect, the wine actually may share some nature of the blood.
But I won't do that. Because Quantum mechanics is not the end all be all of defining matter. It will be replaced by another theory.. and then that one by an even grander theory..and so on and so forth.
Do you have a problem with Jesus being fully man and fully God? Or was he just a man since that's what the dictionary says?
Certain scientific methods are pagan now. That's a fact.
Can this passive aggression meme just die?
You're not genuinely interested in answers. You're interested in point-scoring and roiling up dissent and arguments on the board.
All it does is incite trolls like this ………… and unhelpful arguments like this entire thread.
Here, let me demonstrate:
Feel good?
Shouldn't it stop?
It tastes so good I wish I could eat it every day
I don't know anything about them (not doubting.. just not sure what you mean). Either way, it's all too human.. and a bad tool for explaining God.
This right here. God bless you.
Because the Eucharist does not save your sins.
Regardless if it does, that's not the issue anyways. You're going in with the assumption that Church is about some One and Done sense of Salvation. It's more than that. And Christ told you to do it in remembrance of him. That should end all discussion right then and there. The Big Man told us to do it.
Not EVERYTHING he said had to do with simply salvation.. but actually, most of what he said had to do with our total walk and commitment to him. This may be the most disgusting thing about Protestants actually.. to leave the sum total of theology to salvation (in the past tense). I've literally heard one preacher (RC Sproul) outright say that Jesus could have very well just have been incarnated as a grown man and died on the cross on day 1… that everything else he said or lived took a sidestep. This is how insanely radical Protestantism really is. And selfish, I might say. It's a religion that says "Me, me, me. My Salvation. Me. Me. Me. Who cares about anything else Christ asked of us or did."
If you feel angry and don't see yourself in that last statement, then good! There's hope for you yet. :)
So what denomination can I blame for what just came out of your toilet?
The substance changes. It stops being bread and wine and its now literally the body and blood of Christ.
But the accidents (i.e. aspect, physical properties) of bread and wine remain (well most of the times. Eucharistic miracles do happen)
So memes upon memes is what we rely on for debates these days.
underrated post