Kinda silly but fun thread. Jesus did not say, "I'm holding my body." (I do believe in the real presence but deny the elements change in substance) Jesus is speaking to disciples in the above passage, it's not a universal command. We are to treat everyone else lawfully, for example, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and unjust.” Matthew 5 I know folks like to view Matthew 5 as some revolutionary love toward all but it's really a quote from the Old Mosaic Covenant specifically Leviticus 19:9-18. On the other hand scripture teaches that God, "hatest all workers of iniquity" (Ps. 5:5)! "God is angry with the wicked every day." "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God"not "shall abide," but even now"abideth on him" (Psalm 5:5; 8:11; John 3:36). Jesus also told his followers to "flee to the mountains" Zech. 14:5, Mark 13:14, Luke 21:21 Paul opposed Peter in Gal. 2:11-14 and James was in charge during the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:13 Yours in the Lord, jay
Jesus did not say: "You must not wear jeans and a tea shirt to church". "You must not cuss, smoke, eat lobster, watch TV or drink coffee".
Jesus did not say: "I am a Vine." Wait, he did. Jesus did not say: "I am a door." Wrong again, he did. Jesus did not say: "I am a gate." Still wrong, he did. Jesus did not say: "I am bread." Again, he did. Jesus did not say: "I am a shepherd." of course he did, though he was actually a carpenter. The point I am making is that the Lord frequently used metaphor in his teachings. When he said "“Take, eat; this is my body," a strong argument can be made that he was speaking metaphorically. Did the disciples actually believe, at that moment, that their Lord was handing them some of his muscle tissue and fat, along with his actual blood, and asking them to consume it? Common sense would argue otherwise. I believe in the real presence, but I don't believe we are literally eating human flesh and drinking human blood, anymore than I believe that Christ is a vine or that I am a branch.
The problem is that Jesus' body had not been resurrected and glorified at the time he served the communion to his disciples prior to his crucifixion. Of course, he lived a sinless life, but explain to me how this is reconciled with the view that the passage supports the real presence (I do know Paul's examples might be a bit clearer on this issue, but just wanted to know anyway). However, things not said by Jesus most certainly include the quote from the Gospel of Thomas, seen in my signature, regardless of how beautiful and spiritual it may sound.
In fact Jesus clearly said Jn.10:7-9 "I am the door of the sheep". He can only be speaking metaphorically. Literalists find that difficult, with some of the things Jesus said. Lk.22:19, 1 Cor.11:24-25. Communion is a memorial meal, in honor of our departed Savior, and in remembrance of his sacrificial act which 'Saves the world'. In the meanwhile we "Do this", because Jesus said we should. Lest we neglect our great salvation. Heb.2:3. Transubstantiation and the idea of actually cannibalistically eating and drinking Christ's body and blood, is as repugnant a concept as would be the notion of sheep or men literally going in and out of Jesus. Jn.10:7-9.
Transubstantiation does not encompass all manners by which we may partake of the sacred Body and Blood. The Holy Communion is far from just memorialism, which would be the heresy of Huyldrich Zwingli. Here is what the Church Catechism has to say on the matter: https://www.anglican.net/doctrines/church-catechism/
You missed out the previous question and answer: Question. Why was the Sacrament of The Lord's Supper ordained? Answer. For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby. You surely must understand what the words 'thing signified', mean. Signified means: to be a sign for; to mean; betoken; indicate or declare. It does not mean to 'literally be the thing signified'. The bread and wine are 'sustenance for the spirit', by faith. Not 'food for the body' eaten without discernment. 1 Cor.11:17-22. And certainly not the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. That left Earth in the Ascension and is now in heaven. The 'real presence' in the sacrament is nothing much to do with what the priest says or does, it is in the faith of the recipient that the 'presence' exists. If there has been a regenerative experience in the individual at some time, the sacrament should be a reminder of that.
As we've discussed before, Cranmer was asked about the lord's supper upon his execution, and he affirmed his belief in the Lord's presence in the supper, spiritually. Bullinger wasn't an Anglican. Right, the physical wine and bread themselves don't become the body and blood, but when we take the physical wine and bread, we do take the Lord's body and blood. Makes sense?
No. That does not make sense, if you are saying literally what you have written. Our Lord's body and blood are in heaven, not physically here on earth, in any form except The Spirit. What we have in our mouth is a metaphorical representation of His body and blood, (His Spiritual Life Force), and only then if we 'believe' it to be such, by faith. In fact, if we are to take Christ's words at face value, we should remember Him every time we break and eat bread, and every time we lift a glass of wine to our lips. Not just when a man or woman has said some magic words over wafers and wine, once or twice a week. 1 Cor.11:25. Religion, if it is to be genuine loyalty to Christ, entails 24/7 remembrance, not just once a week communion. And what did Jesus mean when he said "Do This". He may just have meant "Remember Me". Not get involved in an elaborate ritual reenactment of the last supper. Jesus certainly instituted the Last Supper and intended it to be a fellowship of disciples and a memorial event, "whenever we 'Do This' ", but this ceremony is not the essence of Service to Christ. That requires an obedient life, attentive to Christ's leading, not just correctly performing a ritual. We could all do without communion, for extended periods, but none of us, for an instant, can do without Christ's continual presence in The Holy Spirit. Matt.28:20.
So wait, let me get that straight: are you saying that the spiritual presence is less real than the physical one?
It can be anything you believe it to be. MK.9:22-24. But the spiritual presence is 'spiritual' and can only be discerned spiritually. 1 Cor.2:13.
Jn.3:8. The [wind] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the [Spirit].” Mk.1:8. I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy [Spirit].” Dictionary Definition g4151. πνεῦμα pneuma; from 4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit: — ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind. Compare 5590. AV (385) - Spirit 111, Holy Ghost 89, Spirit (of God) 13, Spirit (of the Lord) 5, (My) Spirit 3, Spirit (of truth) 3, Spirit (of Christ) 2, human (spirit) 49, (evil) spirit 47, spirit (general) 26, spirit 8, (Jesus' own) spirit 6, (Jesus' own) ghost 2... Semantically speaking Jn.3:8, is ultimately a tautology. Both [wind] and [spirit] are exactly the same Greek word, [πνεῦμα pneuma]. I will therefore pose the same questions to you. Do you think wind is 'real'? Do you think spirit is 'real'? What do you understand the word 'real' to mean when using it in a sentence alongside 'spiritual'? For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor.2:11-14. It is very clear to me from this text that there is a difference in the way the worldly person receives, (or perceives), actual versus spiritual realities and the way the spiritual person perceives those same spiritual realities. In the case of the realities themselves there is no difference whatsoever, just as wind, πνεῦμα and spirit πνεῦμα are identical words with two distinct and different meanings. The difference is in the discernment of the observer, not in the thing being observed.