Your Friends and Neighbors: Kenny the Sacramentarian Kindergartener (Ep. 2)

[FisherofMen75]

The Supper is not merely a symbol or remembrance. CHRIST IS ACTUALLY PRESENT IN SPIRIT. You can in no way make a case for His phyisical presence. Luther wanted badly for men to revere and hallow the Supper and rightly so. In so doing he kept a bit of the papacy around. He did not have to do that.

[FisherofMen75]

Well friend, here you have erred in your game of satire. You seem to completely affirm the doctrine of transubstantiatioN(that the sacraments actually change into the blood and body of Christ) which is of course a doctrines of demons. You fail to draw the line clearly in the sand for CON-substantiation, which is of course the traditional belief of the Lutheran church and says that Christ is physically present BESIDE the sacraments.

You make a good case why consubstantiation is dangerous.

[DataTime86]

Teacher: Jesus said, “I am the Good Shepherd, and know My sheep and My sheep know…” Lucy, get off the ground! No, Literal Lucy. Don’t baa at me. Ok, moving on, He says “I’ll make you fishers of men.” Lucy!! Get that net off of Lucas. It’s called a metaphor. Look, Lucy, Jesus was not always literal: “And He will separate the sheep from the goats… for when I was hungry, you gave me meat…” (Lucy’s head explodes, flesh and blood splatter.) Oh geez. No, Lucas, don’t eat it in remembrance.

[saintoccasionally]

@DataTime86 What in scripture leads you to the conclusion that the Lord, and Paul for that matter, were speaking metaphorically when they said things like "this is my body" and "the cup which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ"?

Of course some language is metaphorical. I just want to know why you think that particular language is.

[DataTime86]

@saintoccasionally I haven't reached that conclusion. On the contrary, my point behind the satire is that I don't think there is enough evidence either way to make a conclusion. Jesus, though perfect and always speaking truth, very often spoke in metaphors. "This is my body." may or may not be one of them. I think the biggest Biblical evidence is that Jesus and Paul never address this argument, showing that the Bible places greater significance on other issues.

[saintoccasionally]

@DataTime86 They do address it. They just don't treat it like an argument. Paul treats it like a given.

[thewordrules]

Meals have power in the Bible when combined with the Word. A & E could eat from one of two trees. They ate from the tree of which God said, "If you eat of it, you will surely die." And so they did. There was power in that meal only because of God's Words attached to it. Same for the Passover. There was salvation in that meal when done as God commanded. It gave them sustenance as they began their journey through Egypt. He did not have to have them go through the Passover meal, but he did.

[NicholasMyra]

@thewordrules Christ is the Word of God.

[thewordrules]

@NicholasMyra Amen to that!

[PapistWitness]

The fact that this apple is levitating suggests a level of mysticism attached to the Eucharist that seems more appropriate to Romish sacramentology than a Lutheran view.

[NicholasMyra]

@PapistWitness Heh.

Romish.

[PapistWitness]

@NicholasMyra

I was gonna say "Papist", but it's already there in my account name and wanted some variety.

[fullerstudent]

"You are the light of the world" ... and yet I don't glow in the dark?!

[thewordrules]

@fullerstudent Of course not, that would put all eyes on you instead of God. Christ is clear that shining our light is our good works which glorify our Father in heaven.

[FatherBorg]

Well, to quote the well-known Baptist, Bill Clinton:

"That depends what 'IS' means."

LOL!

Great video!

[squirrygirl]

Seems perfectly clear to me. The word "thura" means entry, gate, or door (not just an English-speaker's concept of door). In the context of a sheepfold, it is quite clear that the term is literal. The "gate" was an opening in the enclosure (not what we think of as a gate or door). The shepherd would sleep in front of the opening thus literally functioning to separate the inside from the outside. Anything that wanted to enter or leave the sheepfold had to go thru the shepherd. No metaphor needed.

[professorschwann]

Does anyone else find it funny that the "apple" is just a picture of an apple (a representation) and not actually an apple?

[readysetrosemary]

I like it except at the end where it mentions closed communion. That kind of makes me sad. Isn't Jesus' body and blood given for all believers, not just ones who believe what Lutheran's do?

[squirrygirl]

@readysetrosemary 1 Cor 11:27-29 - to eat and drink without discerning the body of the Lord, eats and drinks judgement on himself and is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Practicing closed communion is a protection. 

[ChristianLayman]

Man this was funny. I think I liked this even more than Messing with Dispensationalists.

[bcsny47]

My favorite one yet! But then I'm Catholic.

[thewordrules]

The Lord was present in the burning bush when he spoke to Moses. How can that be? The Lord was present in the Ark of the Covenant. How can that be. The Lord was present as a pillar of fire and a cloud as he led the Israelites. How can that be? The Lord was present in the wind when he spoke to Elijah. How can that be? He was present in a babe in diapers. How can that be? It can, because first and foremost the Word declares it. Secondly, God is not limited to time and space as we are.

[thewordrules]

Lutheran position- is means is

Catholic position- is means metamorphosis

reformed position- is means represents

Can't use your reason with the things of the Spirit. Reason is why unbelievers deny creation, the virgin birth, the incarnation, the resurrection, the Trinity, the many miracles of Christ.... The list is endless. Reason is why the evangelical church has become so liberal. They deny half of what is in the written Word. Satan's first ploy was "Did God Really say".

[Taiwan1997]

You should have the teacher telling Kenny that she is both in her body and in the apple at the same time (mystical).......or have the teacher say when you eat an apple remember me because I gave you the best apple ever. 1 Cor 11:24. See which scenario makes sense to Kenny......that would be a more accurate representation of consubstantiation as I understand it.

[SporloMBSSB]

I'm incredibly stupid. I meant to direct those last 2 comments

@TheCrushmaster

Sorry @aggierev !

[aggierev]

@SporloMBSSB I was wondering, I won't hold it against you. Good answers btw, oh, you may want to link said Fisk video as he has a bunch.

[SporloMBSSB]

@aggierev

/blood to any number of people at any time if we know that Jesus is fully God and fully man.

2) The meaning of "remembrance" is explained in one of revfiskj's videos.

3) Ignoring the connotation of "remembrance," the statement about "doing" the act of eating has no direct impact on the nature of the bread/wine. Why couldn't you eat a really-present-not-just-a-symb­ol-body in remembrance of them (even if that's not the whole connotation)?

[SporloMBSSB]

@aggierev

1) Quite ironically, I could say that you are the one who is thinking too literally here. Just because Jesus' body is with the bread doesn't mean that is his entire being! Think of all the people who donate organs that can regenerate. Where are their bodies? With the organs or with the rest of themselves? How about both? And regarding the wine, people donate blood all the time, MULTIPLE TIMES, to MULTIPLE PEOPLE. It is no stretch of any degree to say that the bread/wine is Jesus' body

[bholtz5151]

Increasing my vocabulary! Sacramentarian!

[Sissilain]

Hi!

I didn´t answer your previous respond, cause I think you got enough answers already. I just thought that I want to thank you. Since I really haven´t got to the bottom of the differences between my church and the Lutheran one. Now I know one major point and one little less important to myself. Keenly waiting for the next.

[TheCrushmaster]

"Do this in remembrance of Me." Hmm...

[aggierev]

@TheCrushmaster Does not change the meaning of "this is my body"

[TheCrushmaster]

@aggierev Let me ask you this...

If that was literally, physically, His body, and His blood, how was He able to literally, physically be there telling them this...? Does He have two bodies?

[aggierev]

@TheCrushmaster You're funny, would you deny that Jesus is God by suggesting that He cannot be in more than one place at one time?

[TheCrushmaster]

@aggierev No. But He only has One, incarnate body.

[aggierev]

@TheCrushmaster Funny, numbers didn't matter to much when Jesus fed five thousand or did he not really do that? Or are you buying into the Nestorian Heresy which denies the human nature being inseperately united with the divine in the person in Christ?

[TheCrushmaster]

@aggierev ...What...?

You think Christ has multiple, physical bodies...?

Yes, Christ is fully God and fully man. I don't deny that.

[aggierev]

@TheCrushmaster Nestorius said the same thing that Jesus was fully man and fully God but he separated God from man which is what you do when you deny that Christ could be both standing there and present along with the bread as He gives Himself in communion.

[TheCrushmaster]

@aggierev Wait, wait, wait. You're missing the point. If Christ is physically, literally in the bread and wine, and was also physically, literally there with them, He'd have to have multiple physical forms (or even bodies?).

[aggierev]

@TheCrushmaster No, I got the point. I am not playing by the rules that claims Jesus is limited by human reason. Rather I am allowing Jesus to be God and if He says "this is my body" I say "Yes, Lord" I do not try and say He didn't really mean that and thus commit even more and greater heresy.

[jdswiney]

@aggierev It's called figurative language. You think Jesus is literally bread or literally a door? (John 6:48,10:9)

[TheCrushmaster]

@jdswiney Exactly.

[aggierev]

@jdswiney First are there any contextual clues that this statement is figurative besides the fact it does not make sense to me? No, there aren't.

Second, the Greek rendered as door doesn't actually refer to a piece of wood, it actually refers to the opening. So yes, it does literally mean Jesus is the opening into heaven, as it is only through Him we enter heaven.  As for John 6, that passage only make sense if you are willing to take Jesus at His word

[jdswiney]

@aggierev The contextual clue is that... its bread and wine that He's presenting.....

[aggierev]

@jdswiney How exactly are they contextual clues that point to figure of speech? If you say "they can't be body and blood" then you are saying Jesus is less than God because you are in essence saying He can't do something.

[jdswiney]

@aggierev There are plenty of things God can't do because they are contrary to His character and nature (Titus 1:2). Yet I think that's a bit of a red herring argument. It doesn't have anything to do with what is actually taking place. That sounds more like an atheist's argument against God. Also, Paul seems to think Jesus was speaking figuratively. Paul refers to it at bread/ drink ( 1 Cor 11:20-34). He says the bread/ drink were used in the preceding meal. When did it become bread and blood?

[aggierev]

@jdswiney I am not going to play you silly little philosophical game. In addition, Paul in 1 Cor, also refers to the body and blood, in fact he accuses those who abuse the L.S. of profaning Christ's body. How could that be if His body is not there? Next, if Jesus can't lie why did he lie about the bread being his body? Realize, you are the one saying Jesus didn't mean it, so it is upon you to prove it. Not me, who confesses the words of Christ.

[jdswiney]

@aggierev You are making a straw man of my position. I never said Jesus was lying. This is a simple issue of misunderstanding figurative language in your hermenuetic. There is literal truth behind what Jesus said but He clearly didn't mean you are literally eating His flesh. Literally eating His flesh would have been contrary to the law and mean He was sinning by offering it.

[aggierev]

@jdswiney Yet you have given no conclusive evidence Jesus was speaking figuratively. It's time to pony up. Instead, you have only said there are things God cannot do, and thus making Him something less than omnipotent, something less than God.

[jdswiney]

@aggierev That, sir, is a misrepresentation of my position. I have never said God is less than omnipotent. In fact, you first accused me of saying He was not capable of do something when I never said that. Since you continue with the logical fallacies, I will conclude that I have won this debate. I never said He couldn't do it, I said He didn't. He could certainly make it happen but that's not what took place. The Bible is logical. All your arguments are illogical. Study logic and get back to me

[aggierev]

@jdswiney You are the one who said it couldn't be His body. By definition that means you don't think He is powerful enough to place His body there. That's logic btw. Second, a God subject to our logic is no God at all. PS, the Bible is not logical. What logic is there in dying for a person who hates you. P.P.S if you had one the debate I would have changed my position, I have not, ergo you have not won.

[jdswiney]

@aggierev I went back and read my comments. I never said it couldn't be His body. God is logical. Logic comes from Him. Man didn't create logic. We discovered it. It is funny that your logic is faulty again. Even if I said it "couldn't be His body," it doesn't follow that He is not powerful enough to do it. That's like saying my doctor didn't check my blood pressure at my last visit, therefore my doctor is not capable of taking my blood pressure. Maybe my doctor is capable but choose not to.

[aggierev]

@jdswiney Fair enough, you didn't actually come out and say "He couldn't." Yet, you have written, "There are plenty of things God can't do..." In stating such you have implied he could not make His body be present there in union with the bread. Now you must answer why He would say this is my body, but not make it so. Why would He choose not to. I am not going to hold my breath waiting for you to answer. You still haven't given evidence of figurative language usage.

[jdswiney]

@aggierev I gave evidence. You rejected it. You don't believe Jesus is a literally a door with a literal knob and literally made of wood. You said it is literal but gave a figurative definition. As a door, He is similar (point of entry). He is not literally a door. It's a metaphor. The same is true with His statements in the upper room. The bread/drink represents His sacrifice. Him to offer actual human blood to drink would be sinful. Thus if it were actual human blood, Jesus would be sinning.

[aggierev]

@jdswiney Actually, I gave the literal definition for the "I am" passage. Look it up, I would suggest a real lexicon like BDAG. Second, you still have yet to give any grammatical evidence to suggest "This is my body" is figurative. Also, look at the reason why blood was forbidden, and then look at why His blood is given and you will understand why it is not a sin for Him to offer His blood to us.

[aggierev]

Respond to this video... *won not one

[saintoccasionally]

@TheCrushmaster Do what? Eat and drink something? What? That bread and wine about which Jesus said "This is my body...this is my blood"? It is up to you to show us all, from scripture, why we should take Jesus' words in any way but literally. Philosophical arguments with premises that cannot be substantiated by scripture don't count. So why doesn't "is" mean "is"?

[Makemot]

This IS funny. Two thumbs up!