Wow, that community view is blatantly contradictory to 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 "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. 28. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." Ouch!
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Cool! Thank you. I'll add it to my list of books I need to get 😂 I'm the kid that stole my dad's theology books from college, 2 study bibles, concordance, couple commentaries. Also thank you for responding to my comments.
I seem to lean towards the memorial view as there doesn’t seem to be any indication that Jesus is literally giving the disciples his body and blood. That, coupled with the fact that Jesus said “this do in remembrance of me” (and the fact that Jesus FREQUENTLY spoke in metaphors/parables) seems to indicate that it was a tradition started by Jesus for believers to observe and that would continually remind us of His body and blood he shed for us on the cross. Not that Jesus couldn’t do something like that, but to me the verses indicate he was saying it was in fact for the purpose of remembrance, and not a literal transformation of the bread and wine into his body and blood.
Something else to consider is the repetitive symbolic language of the Disciples and Apostles in the epistles of "feeding" the early Christians with "milk", "bread", "meat", etc. They were not literally feeding anyone with anything. They were teaching them the Word. It was the Word that they were consuming spiritually, not literally.
@@turkeybobjr Even further is all the times Jesus refers to Himself as the bread of life (John 6) and as giving out living water (John 4). Obviously we view these as symbols; no one would have walked up to Jesus and taken a bite out of Him or asked him for a glass of his living water. It's symbolic. The same goes for when he refers to communion as His body and blood. And of course he said "Do this in remembrance of Me" and not "Do this and the bread and wine will become Me" or even "Do this and receive Me". ('Me' being His body and blood)
We, Lutherans, do not believe in a physical presence as if Christ is taking up space or is present in a fleshly manner. We believe in a sacramental union between Christ's true body and blood and the elements - which is present even if you believe it or not. We believe that Christ is essentially and substantially present, but not in a physical manner. It's Christ true body and blood, not in a abscent as the reform believe, but in with and under the bread and wine. Here's a video of Jordan B Cooper explaining the matter. czcams.com/video/dgHKo64KzXk/video.html
i would like to add a caveat to the memorialist view as I understand it. This is lazer focused on the bread and wine itself and I wanted to clarify that while memorialists do not believe that the bread and wine physically or spiritually impart the body and blood of Jesus in and of themselves they believe in the necesity of recieving the body and blood in what I would call a real sense but from a presbyterians point of view perhaps a "mystical sense" would be a more apt term. I'm going to refer to a passage in John 6, I understand this to be recieving christ in a mystical sense by faith, but i wonder if people of other backgrounds see this specific passage in the same way. John 6:47-51 ESV - Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” As I understand this passage, Jesus says that we recieve eternal life through believing and that we must eat him(recieve, accept, completely rely on his provision in the sacrifice of christ) and that bread by providing his body ( a reference to him giving his body for us on the cross). Jesus uses bread in the a similar sense to how I understand this reference in mathew 15:26, actually he uses food in a representative fashion in a ton in his teachings john 4:32, mathew 16:12. Again, i'm not trying to argue against transubstantiation,just saying hay, i don't think that's what the passage here is about, so what is it about? John 6:52-63 ESV - The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. how are you reading this? the way I see this passage is that Jesus is refering to his death atoning for sin, and using the illustration of food to show us how we need to hunger and spiritually eat him by believing in him. How does this all tie into the lords supper? The point is we need to recieve the body broken and the blood of the new covenent, this we recieve as I understand it by faith, and the purpose of the bread and the cup is call to rememberance the broken body and the shed blood, so thay we may have a continual rememberance of sacrifice of christ, in this view the cup and the bread do not cause us to recieve the body and blood but they are aids to "doing this in rememberance of me", simply because they do not in and of themselves cause the recieving does not mean they are unrelated to our receiving the body broken and the blood poured out for us,
I know that I should and want to believe in literal presence, but my Baptist upbringing is deep within me and it's hard to internalize what I know is true
Hey bro! I'm making a presentation on LGBT+ participating on the Church and receiving sacraments/ordenances. Do you have good references for me to read about the sacraments?
Martin Luther casually yelling, "is bedeutet ist!"
Lol finally I can watch a theology video to the end
Same😂
The "Presbylutheran" Philippist view is also the Cranmerian and Anglican view for anyone who is wondering.
Wow, that community view is blatantly contradictory to 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 "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. 28. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." Ouch!
I take the Zwinglian view (memorial view) I'm really interested in the reformed view though. I want to learn more about that one.
More videos about that are coming up
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Oh! That's great!
Do you have any sources, pastors, books you'd recommend of that?
@@Swiftninjatrev books - the mystical presence by John Williamson Nevin. Best theology book I’ve ever read period
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Cool! Thank you. I'll add it to my list of books I need to get 😂
I'm the kid that stole my dad's theology books from college, 2 study bibles, concordance, couple commentaries.
Also thank you for responding to my comments.
I seem to lean towards the memorial view as there doesn’t seem to be any indication that Jesus is literally giving the disciples his body and blood. That, coupled with the fact that Jesus said “this do in remembrance of me” (and the fact that Jesus FREQUENTLY spoke in metaphors/parables) seems to indicate that it was a tradition started by Jesus for believers to observe and that would continually remind us of His body and blood he shed for us on the cross.
Not that Jesus couldn’t do something like that, but to me the verses indicate he was saying it was in fact for the purpose of remembrance, and not a literal transformation of the bread and wine into his body and blood.
Something else to consider is the repetitive symbolic language of the Disciples and Apostles in the epistles of "feeding" the early Christians with "milk", "bread", "meat", etc. They were not literally feeding anyone with anything. They were teaching them the Word. It was the Word that they were consuming spiritually, not literally.
@@turkeybobjr Even further is all the times Jesus refers to Himself as the bread of life (John 6) and as giving out living water (John 4). Obviously we view these as symbols; no one would have walked up to Jesus and taken a bite out of Him or asked him for a glass of his living water. It's symbolic. The same goes for when he refers to communion as His body and blood. And of course he said "Do this in remembrance of Me" and not "Do this and the bread and wine will become Me" or even "Do this and receive Me". ('Me' being His body and blood)
God bless everyone and have a good day ❤
We, Lutherans, do not believe in a physical presence as if Christ is taking up space or is present in a fleshly manner. We believe in a sacramental union between Christ's true body and blood and the elements - which is present even if you believe it or not. We believe that Christ is essentially and substantially present, but not in a physical manner. It's Christ true body and blood, not in a abscent as the reform believe, but in with and under the bread and wine.
Here's a video of Jordan B Cooper explaining the matter. czcams.com/video/dgHKo64KzXk/video.html
i would like to add a caveat to the memorialist view as I understand it. This is lazer focused on the bread and wine itself and I wanted to clarify that while memorialists do not believe that the bread and wine physically or spiritually impart the body and blood of Jesus in and of themselves they believe in the necesity of recieving the body and blood in what I would call a real sense but from a presbyterians point of view perhaps a "mystical sense" would be a more apt term.
I'm going to refer to a passage in John 6, I understand this to be recieving christ in a mystical sense by faith, but i wonder if people of other backgrounds see this specific passage in the same way.
John 6:47-51 ESV - Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
As I understand this passage, Jesus says that we recieve eternal life through believing and that we must eat him(recieve, accept, completely rely on his provision in the sacrifice of christ) and that bread by providing his body ( a reference to him giving his body for us on the cross). Jesus uses bread in the a similar sense to how I understand this reference in mathew 15:26, actually he uses food in a representative fashion in a ton in his teachings john 4:32, mathew 16:12. Again, i'm not trying to argue against transubstantiation,just saying hay, i don't think that's what the passage here is about, so what is it about?
John 6:52-63 ESV - The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
how are you reading this? the way I see this passage is that Jesus is refering to his death atoning for sin, and using the illustration of food to show us how we need to hunger and spiritually eat him by believing in him.
How does this all tie into the lords supper? The point is we need to recieve the body broken and the blood of the new covenent, this we recieve as I understand it by faith, and the purpose of the bread and the cup is call to rememberance the broken body and the shed blood, so thay we may have a continual rememberance of sacrifice of christ, in this view the cup and the bread do not cause us to recieve the body and blood but they are aids to "doing this in rememberance of me", simply because they do not in and of themselves cause the recieving does not mean they are unrelated to our receiving the body broken and the blood poured out for us,
Well there's your problem! You're appealing to the Word of God! You're supposed to be appealing to cHuRcH tRaDiTiOn, silly!
/sarcasm/
I know that I should and want to believe in literal presence, but my Baptist upbringing is deep within me and it's hard to internalize what I know is true
Hey bro! I'm making a presentation on LGBT+ participating on the Church and receiving sacraments/ordenances. Do you have good references for me to read about the sacraments?
Great video! Do you have a discord server?
I'm going to make one when my college semester is over
@@redeemedzoomer6053 let's gooo
I like consubstantiation. This is the one thing I really disagree with the Catholics on (theologically).
What if its more about believers in the Church together eating a meal?
It's the church it can't be that simple. God may be merciful but doesn't mean he isn't confusing.
It's not
See 1 Corinthians 11
This has always been extremely confusing for me
Luther you could've just made one branch instead of a thousand!
Warum Luther warum? Du soll haben just liesen eine Buch und wir will habe ein Kirche!
Oh Luther 🤦♂️😅