Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion

No problem. Do you see how this, like so many other signs in the Scriptures, points to a physical consumption of Christ?

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion

I do keep forgetting that we’ve covered the “Panentheistic” ground before, Satolkin. Sorry.

I am still having a hard time grasping your beliefs and how you apply them to your life, though, Satolkin. Christ seems to be primarily symbolic of the life of God in everyone. So Christ was also an individual who reached the ideal of realizing God in himself? Was the Incarnation a singular physical event? Was he the only one who did that? Did he actually die and resurrect? Is he coming again; will their be a time that God will usher in an eternal kingdom through the one person of Christ as King?

Your gnostic approach seems to be one of individualized enlightenment-seeking. A spiritualistic approach that is and has essentially been the same for all mankind since our creation. Does anything change in Salvation History? Are there any important points in history, or is it essentially this individual journey unchanged?

I do like your title of the “Repairer;” thanks for sharing that.

As a side note with relation to the topic of Eucharist, I discovered this Christmas season, through the insight of another, something that should be rather obvious but which I missed in the NT Nativity stories. Jesus was placed in a manger, a feeding trough. Yet another demonstration of his offering himself as food, both spiritually and physically, for his people, his sheep.

Topic: Misc. / December 2008 Monthly Thread - Merry Christmas!

Welcome back!

And a belated Merry Christmas to everyone, and Happy New Year! I haven’t been on the computer for over a week (while visiting family), but it looks like I haven’t missed much—aside from tons of junk mail.

Topic: Misc. / I'm really worried about koo....

Welcome back, Koo! You had us worried!

Sounds like you’ll be having a white (or at least slushy) Christmas.

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion

Aran, re- read my post. We’re not going to agree on this: in my tradition, Christ is already within us, the Eucharist is a reminder, and a “sharing.”

I can see your point, when you believe that “Christ” is more a concept and an essence of divinity and ideal than a distinct individual who is a unique part of a united three person Godhead. I can’t think of the precise term right now, but your belief seems more animistic. Most Christians would agree that God is omnipresent, but there is choice involved with how He manifests—both our choice and His choice. His life within us is not static, and it is not automatic.

what is the difference of te Eucharist and dining upon Jesus the christ? It’s the same thing…partaking of the bread & water(wine) is symbolic of dining of Jesus Christ…

“Symbolic of” is not “actually.” Symbol is abstract, an idea. It can be a reflection of the spiritual in a physical act, but is not itself a spiritual reality. Neither is a symbol the actual thing that it symbolizes—otherwise it wouldn’t be a symbol, at all, but the actual thing. That’s why I make the distinction that a symbolic Eucharist, while it can be meaningful, does not in actuality consist of a spiritual or a physical real presence of Christ.

As for Christ as the New Adam, I’ll have to just relate some quick thoughts from memory here. There’s a lot in the Catholic tradition about it, though; I’ve been hearing this (and Mary as the New Eve) since I was a child. To start, so that I recognize the differences in our beliefs, I think LDS believe that Adam was Michael the Archangel who, during a sort of discussion of divine plans, chose to become the first man in order to sin and cause the death that would allow Jesus to come?

And for gnostics, Adam is more of a representation of the beginning of man, man’s rebellion against divinity, the consequences that followed that, and the necessity of Christ as a remedy against that rebellion?

Catholics believe that Jesus’ role as the New Adam is inherent in his primary mission of salvation. He was the “seed” of the woman, Eve, who would crush the serpent’s head, the one foretold from the time of the Original Sin to come and repair the damage of that sin, to reconcile mankind with God. Christ “makes all things new.” In him we are re-generated—no longer are we “Satan’s children,” no longer of the generation of Adam, but through Christ (his baptism) we have the opportunity to be reborn as true children of God, co-heirs with Christ, his brothers and sisters.

I’ll assume you’re both familiar with chiasm (in my experience, Gnostics and the Smithite groups appreciate it quite a bit). This is perhaps the greatest chiasm, that God creates Adam, then Eve, and the two sin, and through them death enters the world. Even as God tells Adam and Eve the consequences they have brought on their whole race, He prophesies of the eventual reconciliation of that sin, the healing of that wound, to reunite His children with Him. Then God creates Mary, the New Eve, Ark of the New Covenant (just as the original Ark, which is a throne for the Queen Mother, contained the manna, the rod, and the Word contained in the tablets). Through her (with her choice to submit to His will, rather than disobey as Eve did), He Incarnates His son, both untouched by the sin of Adam and Eve so that they could usher in the new generation. Then, of course, Christ reconciles us to God, infinite God condescending to become one of us and offer himself as ransom for our sins, the only way that our sin against an infinitely good God could be truly atoned for. Adam + Eve—> New Eve + New Adam.

In addition to Genesis and the various prophecies speaking of the Messiah that would come to restore what Adam had broken, the NT has some references to Christ as the New Adam, as well, and how we are reborn to God and no longer children of Satan when we accept Christ and die with him. Perhaps the most direct is “So, too, it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being,” the last Adam a life-giving spirit. But the spiritual was not first; rather the natural and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man, from heaven.” (I Cor 15: 45-47) and “for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.” (1Cor 15:22-23)

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion

Arandur you’re making no sense. I believe it is a symbol of his flesh & blood, and that what you said, about us partaking of him is also part of the symbolism of “partaking of the sacrament” as we say…:)))

Bottom line, and again, I’m not slamming your belief, but to me, the Eucharist as a symbolic act is far more meaningful than as an act of actually dining upon Jesus the Christ. That just doesn’t mean anything to me.

My response to these gets back to my earlier quote in question:

How does he live in us if we do not consume him? How do we have eternal life if we do not partake (eat) of his eternal life?

Eating is a physical act, and the physical is an integral part of our experience and of our being, a part that God joined us in in the Incarnation. The Passover meal that Christ perfected required physical consummation. Christ’s own language in John 6, where he used such strong words about the physical reality of consuming his flesh and blood that he lost disciples (and did not correct them by telling them that he was just talking about symbols), reinforces the concept of the physical as good (as originally declared by God in Genesis) and remade good when Christ “makes all things new,” becoming the new Adam. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is, as he says, physical as well as spiritual. Jesus did not disdain the physical in preference for purely spiritual good; rather, his very Incarnation transformed our physical existence as well, blessing it with dignity because the one true God became physical. So his Eucharist is not just a symbol meant to point to something spiritual, but it is a physical and spiritual reality.

We gain eternal life, we become a part of the Body of Christ (a physical thing) by partaking of his body, taking it into ourselves so that his grace can literally become a part of us, physically as well as spiritually. Christ’s physical presence in the Eucharist realizes in a very real and true sense his promise that he would be with us to the end of the age. Our reception of him in Communion creates (in a much fuller and truer sense than, yes, “mere” symbolism by comparison) the actual Body of Christ.

You took issue before, Satolkin, with my reference to symbolic communion as “mere,” and say that the idea of transubstantiation doesn’t mean anything to you. Compare a symbol indicating some concept with the actual reality of Christ, Son of God, Word of God through which we and the whole universe were created, physically and spiritually present before you, offering himself eternally in a communal sacrificial meal, offering himself to literally become a part of us and live in us not just spiritually, but physically as well. How can a symbol not be considered “mere” when placed beside the actual presence of the infinite God? How can a symbolic communion begin to compare with a true Communion and partaking of the actual Lamb of God?

Topic: Misc. / I'm really worried about koo....

Oh, good! I was beginning to worry the same thing. Thanks for the update!

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion

Yes, Satolkin, symbols can be very good and worthwhile. But if this is true:
bq. how then that we would not have to eat him, the Lamb of God? How does he live in us if we do not consume him? How do we have eternal life if we do not partake (eat) of his eternal life?

...then how can a symbol suffice? It does become “mere” in the sense that it is lacking in comparison. It does become just an act if it is not a true partaking/participation.

I am, of course, challenging the notion that the Eucharistic bread and wine/water are just symbols and not actually Christ’s body and blood in some physical and metaphysical sense.

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion

You agree with that? But then how can you do so if you do not take Jesus at his word and instead think Communion is merely a symbol, a rote act?

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion

I did read the link, though I skimmed through some parts. I understand about Christ taking up our sins. We are going around in a relatively minor point of disagreement. It seems to me that you diminish the Cross by relegating it to a minor point, just going through the motions so that certain points of prophecy would be fulfilled. I am saying that we should not separate any part of his Passion and declare it more than all others to be the important part of his saving act. The Passion was not just a technicality to go through after he accepted the burden of our sins upon himself. It must all be taken together. All the blood he shed for us is redemptive, not just that from the Garden. The Lamb (both the Passover lamb and the Lamb of God) had to be slain for its/his blood to cover over us.

Which brings me to another part of the question about the Eucharist: the lamb had to be eaten in order for the firstborn children to be passed over, in order that its death serve for theirs. Likewise, Christ, the spotless lamb, was slain in place of us, children of Adam; how then that we would not have to eat him, the Lamb of God? How does he live in us if we do not consume him? How do we have eternal life if we do not partake (eat) of his eternal life?

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion

That’s an interesting theory, but I just don’t see any reason to think that the hour or so in Gethsemane constituted Christ’s saving act. I’ve pointed to the significance the Scriptures have placed upon the Crucifixion (to say nothing of Tradition), and don’t really see why you would separate Gethsemane from the rest of his Passion, or say that he endured his real burden just during that hour, not carrying it with him until his death. I understand the tendency to focus on the spiritual as the supreme sphere, against which the physical is as nothing, but this sort of focus can often get excessive and miss the truth. Christ’s every act was filled with meaning, and the physical is often a reflection of the spiritual; the events of his Passion beyond the Garden would not have been mere rote acts, whether to fulfill the signs of prophecy or not. The Scriptures just don’t point to Gethsemane as being the focal point of it all.

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion

Yes, because I receive it in a specifically Christian context.

Satolkin, could you elaborate? I’m not sure what you mean. What in your view was different about Christ’s Last Supper and the Eucharistic celebration by which we partake in that Last Supper?

Also, LDSGal, could you please elaborate a bit on the passages you quoted? I don’t think most Christians would doubt the fact that Jesus sweat blood during his agony in the garden, nor that the blood of his Passion was prophesied to be our salvation. He bled a lot on the Cross, though—fatigue and loss of blood may well have been what killed him before he could suffocate on the cross, as was normal for crucifixions. What in those passages shows differently than this view of the Cross and the greater Passion (and the blood shed during it)?

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion

Thanks for the link.

Satolkin, do you think there is anything particularly special about the Christian Eucharist rather than a bread and wine communal meal borrowed from older traditions?

LDSGal, I agree that the Agony in the Garden was a part of the Lord’s Passion that began during the Last Supper Passover meal. I would not separate it from his Crucifixion. Since all of the prophetic symbolism and teachings of the first Apostles focused on things that occurred during Christ’s Crucifixion, I don’t think the Agony in the Garden was the primary part of his suffering.

Consider all of Isaiah’s words about Christ, that he would bear the sins of his people and be pierced and striped, wounded. Note that the Passover meal involves the placement of a matzoh in one of three compartments of a sheaf and hidden, to be “discovered” or brought out later (representing both the unleavened bread of the Exodus and the manna in the desert, which was believed to be given again in the future). Matzoh is “pierced” with holes, “striped” during the baking. Jesus suffered those wounds during his scourging and Crucifixion. He IS the Bread, the manna from Heaven, born in Bethlehem, the “House of Bread.” The Passover meal was a setup for Christ, a foreshadowing and a sign to Israel. The Third Cup of the Passover meal, the “Cup of Redemption,” was that which Christ instituted as his Blood, transforming it and fulfilling its purpose as a foreshadowing of his suffering and death. The Fourth Cup, the “Cup of Completion” that constituted God “pouring out His wrath,” he refused to take—until just before he died on the cross. This shows that his saving act included his crucifixion, and this is what Christ asked his Father to let pass in the garden. He did not take the cup in Gethsemane. He was asking for another way, to avoid the terrible suffering he would go through, not that he had gone through. So while he began to take up his burden in Gethsemane, it was not lifted until his death on the Cross, so the physical suffering that he endured as a reflection of the spiritual wounding of sin, and which served as temporal atonement for that sin, was an integral part of his saving act. The Passover meal was believed to be an active and real participation in the first meal, just before the Exodus; the Last Supper and the Eucharist that came out of it should be seen in just the same manner, us participating in the very same meal, partaking of the actual Lamb of God that was slain. You had to eat the lamb in order to be spared from God’s wrath.

Then we have the first Apostles, who frequently refer to the Cross in a manner befitting the primary point, the fulcrum, of Christ’s saving act (it was not complete until and would have been inconsequential without the Resurrection, but the high point of the atonement was on the Cross). They don’t talk much about Gethsemane, by comparison. In fact, they say that the manner in which we participate in our Lord’s suffering is by “taking up our cross.”

Consider also our Lord’s cry of “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which was a direct invocation of Psalm 22, a Psalm recounting his Passion in remarkable detail centuries before it happened. While that cry may also indicate a feeling of separation from God and similar things in addition to the Psalm reference, I think it does indicate that the Passion carried through to his death, both physically and spiritually.

I have long wondered why different Christian groups use substitutes for wine, be it grape juice or water. Is it just the practical availability of water as opposed to wine, and prohibition against alcohol?

I would expect that wine is actually more practical in many countries where drinking water is often of dubious quality. Wine is safer, particularly in communal celebrations, and more portable (it does not breed harmful bacteria with length in containers). Where wine may not be available, well, we Catholics don’t believe that wine is absolutely necessary. Christ is Resurrected and alive; since a living Body is not separated from its blood, the Bread is wholly Christ’s Body and still sufficient. Still, I find the practicality argument odd as a justification for using water, particularly from groups that criticize Catholics for our Baptism practices, of which variants were often instituted for more practical reasons. Christ and the Apostles were much more explicit about using wine in Communion than immersion in Baptism.

As for prohibitions on alcohol, I’ve also found that puzzling. Christ removed prohibitions, and Paul reiterated him. Recommendations I can understand, temperance is always a virtue, but ceremonial uses don’t seem much of a danger.

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion

I actually haven’t seen the LDS teaching about the blood and the Garden of Gethsemane, LDSGal. Could you direct me to where to find it?

Do you think it stands entirely for the blood in Gethsemane, and not at all for that on the Cross? Related to that, do you think his suffering the burdens of our sin in his time of prayer in Gethsemane was the extent of it, that he got it over with then and just had an anti-climactic physical part to suffer after?

Topic: Misc. / November 2008 Monthly Thread

I’m starting to worry about Koo…

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / The Holy Eucharist, a.k.a. Communion

Topic to discuss the Holy Eucharist, Communion, remembrance of the Lord’s Supper, etc. Bread and wine, wafer or water, common cup or individual, symbol or real presence, open or closed…what do you believe?

Topic: Misc. / The Origin of Christmas!

I guess I could get into more specifics. Driving in with our two cats (Solomon and Gideon) and depositing them with my in-laws in KC. Then trucking across MO to spend the first half of Christmas week with my family, the second half with hers on the return trip. Turkey Day is with my family this year, so Christmas is with hers. Unfortunately, most of our vacation days have been used up, so we only have that one week. I may end up missing Christmas at a Catholic Church—I won’t get to go on Christmas day with my family, as usual, anyway. My wife’s church doesn’t always have a Christmas celebration.

Hmmm…that could be an interesting topic, Satolkin…what do you believe about the Eucharist? I didn’t think you were Episcopalian or Catholic, and we have closed communion. Of course, that doesn’t stop you from coming up for it, hence my question about what you believe about it.

Topic: Misc. / The Origin of Christmas!

Yes, I will always love MO because of Fall and Spring, both of which last a good 3 months, generally. I really miss those seasons here in CO. All seasons are more moderate here, but none of any real length are particularly good. Summer nights and mornings are beautiful, though.

So is there less emphasis on the winter aspect of Christmas in your balmy (or at least snowless) areas? I’ve always strongly associated Christmas with winter. I can take a blizzardy Christmas season and be quite happy. What makes it suck is the extra 2 months of dreariness afterward.

Topic: Misc. / The Origin of Christmas!

SF hardly ever sees snow, though, right? I was recently in SoCA, but I thought I remembered warmer weather trees in SF…As for FL, 50’s? That’s jump-in-the-pool weather compared to what winters are like in CO and MO (MO is worse). At least CO still has sunlight. MO is typically about 4-5 months of colorlessness interrupted by occasional moments of retina-searing low-angle light.

Topic: Misc. / The Origin of Christmas!

SF and FL…does one put Christmas lights on palm trees? How does all that work in your lands without winter?

Topic: Misc. / The Origin of Christmas!

I can survive an hour or two of crappy scenery when the bulk of the drive is great. Traffic across CO on I-70 is a nightmare, though. It’s freaking ridiculous in the snow at night. I refuse to do those white-knuckle drives anymore, where you inch along for hours past spun out and wrecked hulks just hoping you might find a rare gas station to fill up, de-ice, and drain the lizard.

I recently got to see the northern part of NM on the way to Sedona. Quite a bit better. My first exposure to the “land of enchantment,” though, had me wanting to run down every sign I saw with that false moniker. When I wasn’t dodging gas tankers flying down the highway at over 90mph trying to pass my 15’ moving truck (+towed car w/canoe on the top) on a one lane winding road, or trying to find a gas station within the 100 mile range of my reserve tank, that is.

I don’t envy your driving sales job. My love for the road doesn’t last beyond a few hours a week. I hope it paid well and allowed good time off.

Topic: Misc. / The Origin of Christmas!

Ah yes, I wasn’t mistaken: you have lived in or around Denver. I’m from STL originally; the in-laws are in KC. So we hit both sides of MO. A 4 hour drive across much prettier country than most of Kansas.

I sympathize with you. We listen to audiobooks for much of the journey, when we’re not talking. At least my wife doesn’t mind driving; we switch off every 2-3 hours when we’re night driving. But yes, it is hideous. The only thing similar to it I’ve experienced was a stint through the barren salt flats of New Mexico when I was helping move a friend down to Tucson.

Colby’s a real treat, yeah? That fake palm tree at the trucker stop, the movie theater that’s really not, the tiny Walmart and the blessed drive-through liquor store next to the motels…It makes Hayes seem nice and homey. Of course, there are 3 hours of nothing in CO, as well. I would have been happier had God decided to tighten up America’s waistline and axe off the several hundred miles between Denver and KC. Maybe some day bullet trains will be cheap enough to cross that wasteland. I’m not holding my breath.

In the meantime, I’ll keep my eye out for field mice :)

Topic: Misc. / The Origin of Christmas!

I have an uncle in SF. If I ever head that way, I’ll let you know.

When I was talking about “emphasis on Christ,” I was meaning what we consider to be his place in the Godhead, history, and our worship. We regard his life as the central focus of all of human history; his saving act was real and distinct, not just representative of union with God. His place as part of the Godhead is unique, as the Son of the Triune God, which is the only truly divine being (in the strict sense of the term, being the only Necessary Being). While we may all become co-heirs with Christ and share in his divinity through him, our partaking of divinity is dependent upon him and never truly equals him.

We agree that we’re God’s children, though I suspect we mean different things here, as well. I expect you are familiar with the Catholic teaching that Christ is entirely divine and entirely human (in hypostasis)? He was more than an exemplification; we was an embodiment. In order to Redeem us, God had to become one of us, and so He incarnated the uncreated Son.

Gal, just visiting the family and the in-laws. Braving the drive across Kansas again with our cats. Last time we attempted it the snow was almost disastrous; added 5 hours to the trip, as it was. Aside from the routine winds trying to blow us off the road, driving rain, or ice storms, we’ve narrowly missed being scrubbed off the road by two simultaneous tornadoes, and been stuck in the fleaspeck Colby (so-called “Oasis of the Plains”) for three days due to an anomaly the weathermen described as a “tropical storm” spinning in place across Kansas, Nebraska, and SD. 3 days of 70-90mph wind and driving snow and sleet, sheets of ice, and everything closed down except a truck stop and liquor store—narrowly snagged one of the last rooms in a Super 8.

I’m convinced God has forsaken the state of Kansas. He certainly didn’t intend for it to be inhabited—why He ever stuck it in there between MO and CO I’ll have to ask Him someday. In the meantime, I think it’s only fit for nuclear testing.

Topic: Misc. / The Origin of Christmas!

Where are you located again? I thought there was someone who lived in CO here… It would be a good bar discussion. We Catholics have a little social thing called “Theology on Tap” that you might appreciate (and might horrify our dry LDS brother and sister here :) .

Don’t have time for more of a reply now, but some interesting things to think about. As a Catholic, I obviously place more importance on Christ, since we believe he’s a person of the Godhead and not just an ideal servant of God, but I’ll get into that more later.

Topic: Misc. / The Origin of Christmas!

So, Satolkin, why do you prefer the Christian version? Or do you?

I see all those parallel symbolisms as signs and foretellings to prepare the world for Christ. They had to come from somewhere. Seems like the options are 1. purely human invention, and thus transmitted and transformed solely through human society and philosophy; 2. natural origin manifested in signs that humans have interpreted (rightly or wrongly) into myth, transmitted and transformed through developing human understanding; 3. revelation of supernatural truth by supernatural powers; or 4. a combination of any of those three in varying weights.

I believe that Truth is written both into observable nature (including human nature), but that there is also a supernatural origin and supernatural existence beyond the observable. Some of the supernatural can be extrapolated from the natural through reasoning, but we have been given divine guidance through revelation, and this makes interpretation and understanding more reliable (more than speculation and theory).

With the prevalent ancient symbolism captured in Christmas from the Mithras cults and solstice festivals to the modern day Christian holiday, I think we see signs that have been recognized through much of human history. God has written His Truth into His Creation, and spoken it even outside His Chosen people. Some of the symbolism known in these other myths comes from human invention and interpretation; some comes from echoes of Truth delivered by supernatural beings; some comes from what God has made known more directly to good men and women who have sought Him righteously through the ages. Satolkin, I believe the various gnostic belief systems in revelation from demiurges and “gods” would fit into that middle category, and I would tend to call those beings “Powers, Principalities, and Thrones.” Some were true Angels (as in “messengers of God”), some were likely beings with less righteous goals. To the extent that they echoed the Truth, they all prepared the way for the Lord, just as the OT Scriptures foretold the signs he would fulfill.

So by my perspective, all of that old symbolism points to Christ, and Christ IS the true meaning of Christmas. Not because these symbols have been usurped, but because he is truly whom they were meant to point to.