It is sometimes claimed that Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and others who confess Christ's real presence in the Supper are guilty of cannibalism. This video addresses that concern.
"A mystery"....yes, I think I understand.....kind of like the Holy Spirit is in us.......well where in us?......in our heart?.....the organ that pumps blood?......or perhaps our big toe?......I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just thinking out loud. There are some things that we accept by faith from Scripture without completely being able to understand and dissect them. We believe in the Trinity....we don't completely understand that either. I was having a difficult time with the Lutheran understanding of the Sacrament of Communion....but now I believe I understand it better. Thank you Pastor.
You are knowledgeable and articulate as always, Dr Cooper! In my Baptist majority Christian high school, whenever I espouse the belief in real presence I get immediately dismissed as being cannibalistic. It's really frustrating, as I always find the accusation against Lutherans (and other Sacramental Christians) of being cannibals as lazy insults rather than thought out argument.
1 Corinthians 10:25 *Eat whatever* is sold in the meat market without asking questions for the sake of conscience. 1 Corinthians 10:27 If one of the unbelievers invites you over and you want to go, *eat whatever* you are served without asking questions for the sake of conscience. Corinthian pagans ate blood. The Jerusalem Council must have been contextual. Hebrews 13:11 For the high priest brings the blood of the animals sacrificed for sins *into the Most Holy Place,* and then their bodies are burned outside the camp. 1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that *you yourselves are God’s temple,* and that God’s Spirit lives in you? The Old Covenant made believers aware of uncleanness by sprinkling them with the blood of the covenant but not allowing blood to enter their bodies. God reserved the blood of sacrifice for his Holy Place. In the New Covenant, we are the Holy Place, so Christ the High Priest may bring the blood of the New Testament *into* us.
@@Mygoalwogel That is a GROSS use of 1 Corinthans 3:16 as the word you is PLURAL and therefore not talking about going into your INDIVIDUAL body. Read the rest of the verse: "Don't you know that you (PLURAL) yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells IN YOUR MIDST."
@@hexahexametermeter *CO*mmunion is not an individual sacrament but an ecclesial one. It can only be taken by the assembly, not privately. 🤷🏿♂️ Do you have something substantive?
but it would be cannibalism. cannibalism, eating of human flesh by humans. The term is derived from the Spanish name (Caríbales, or Caníbales) for the Carib, a West Indies tribe well known for its practice of cannibalism. A widespread custom going back into early human history, cannibalism has been found among peoples on most continents.
Jordan makes my evenings so much more alive now turned off my am news talk to listen to a truthful person thank you so many or us can become free from the turmoil going on in this world by redirecting our attention to a positive mentor Jordan has so many of us appreciating what he is as a spiritually minded man never stop what you're doing for the church
This has been very helpful. I am currently in a old Baptist church. The Pastor referred to Lutherans and Catholics as cannibals. That drinking blood has always been forbidden, *BUT* at the same time he reads: "John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water." and says Jesus is the bread from Heaven and is the living waters. He explains that he does not understand how, but that is what the scripture says. *How can Jesus be the bread from heaven, the manna in the wilderness but not be the bread of communion* ? He is a good pastor, uses scripture for most everything he says, is clear and logical expect on a few points. I think he is confused on this point because he has been taught all his life that it is not the blood and is having trouble seeing the situation clearly.
2 Tim 3:16 - All Scripture is inspired Jesus, in the pages of Scripture, states “ THIS is my body, THIS is my blood”. PERIOD, with no conditions or conditional statement additionally
I am ask to believe not to totally understand. Like many things in the Holy Scriptures: the virgin birth of Jesus, the Holy Trinity, Baptism, etc., the Lord's Supper is a true Sacrament ( mystery) that we believe by faith, which God gives to His people. Thanks for not dodging the tough questions. God's peace be with you.
Thanks for this explanation - one thing you mentioned in this video that I am more interested in (please direct me if you have a video on this question/topic), is when you said some people call it a spiritual eating, and thus the first thing we think of with the word 'spiritual' is non fleshly, or non-bodily, or more concretely and simply - non-tangible/physical...and I thought that for a while and was told it by some people...some who thought that just 'eating the word' was like essentially reading the bible and inwardly or what they called 'spiritually' digesting it and its message, or its guidance on living or morality or whatever.....and that all other things concerning the physical matter of the earth was pointless (I've since learned this is close to what Gnosticism taught, no? A hyper understanding of physical vs. spiritual)...anyways, I am very interested on this topic and am curious if you have more to say on it. I will say that I have really found the Lutheran tradition to be a blessing in my life - I have been attending an ELCA church recently, and I simply appreciate the things stated in the liturgy that are just not attempted to be explained or defined further. My mind sought to understand and explain such unexplainable things more fully and always came up short, and then I found out that I don't have to know/explain all the details or the 'how' question...but it simply just 'is'.
If you read Peter Martyr Vermigili The Oxford Disputations on the Eucharist...he says Lords supper is sacrament and Luther accuses Theodore Beza, Calvin, Zwingli, etc as being "Sacramentarians" on the Eucharist. Calling them Sacrementarian was apparently meant as a slander.
If I go to a non-denominational church and they give out those bread (basically styrofoam) and juice elements, can I still assume Christ’s real presence is there or is there some ecclesiastic body that must administer and bless the bread and wine for it to be valid?
The bible says "This is my body, this is my blood." Our goal is not to explain away how this can be but just trust in the word of God given to use. Not using majisterial reason but ministerial reason
@@34Packardphaeton It can be paraphrased that way, not translated that way. Paul does not paraphrase it your way: 1 Corinthians 10:16 "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a *communion of the blood* of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a *communion of the body* of Christ?"
In no other place in the Bible does God require humans to believe something that cannot be understood. .. I simply do not believe that "eating His flesh" and "drinking His blood" is, in any way, literal.
@@34Packardphaeton Your first sentence in your latest post is entirely untrue. You cannot understand the incarnation, yet you are to believe it. How can the fullness of the Godhead dwell in Christ bodily? How can the man Jesus be the very God? Where did Jesus get his y chromosome if he had no human Father? You don't know! How could the almighty omniscient one become a baby who cannot talk, think rationally, or do anything but poop, pee, sleep, cry, and suck? How could God the Son not know something? How Your comment is so unbelievably contrary to the entire gospel!
So would you say that Christ is spiritually present withing the physical elements of the bread and wine, indwelt in them ? That way when a believer eats bread and wine, with chrsit spiritually indwelt in them, they recieved Christ. However when a disbeliever recieves the bread and wine with Christ indwelt in them, they do recieve Christ, however their lack of faith brings upon spiritual condemnation instead of spiritual strengthening ? Almost like a reverse calvaniat approach. Calvinists things you ascend through faith, whereas I am asking if Christ is present is spiritually but withing physical means, so anyone can atill partake of him?
Question: If the "benefits" of our Lord's sacrifice is transferred by participation in the Eucharist how do we explain the ENTIRE book of acts where the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is initiated with belief in the work of Christ at Calvary? To hear real presence proponents one might think they had never considered that the Holy Spirit already dwells in the believer. Therefore..what is LACKING in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer that one must make this continual end-around to insure the presence of Christ in the believer?
I agree. Look at all the accounts in the book of Acts of people receiving the Holy Spirit. It never says "and then they received Christ into their bodies by eating the eucharist which is what really matters".
Wow you pretty much articulated Calvin's doctrine of the presence in the supper at the end! Spiritual presence that does not mean it doesn't communicate the real body and blood of Christ!
Logically.... •God is SPIRIT and we worship Him in SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH (Jn. 4:24). •Jesus is God (Jn. 8:58) Therefore, when Jesus says “This IS My body/blood” (Matt. 26:26-28), the Spiritual presence of Him as God exist in the sacrament (cf. Jn. 6:53, 63) The bread and the wine is Jesus IN, WITH, and UNDER it 🥖🍷 ✝️
Real Presence isn't the question here, really, is it? In laymen's terms any protestant might say they believe Jesus is there really. The reality is that Jesus is there, body, blood, soul and divinity. Meaning....he is there (in all that he is, thus body, blood, soul and divinity (both natures). He told us and He is. So why use "real presence" in the title?
Do you think that the fact that Christ's body is now a σῶμα πνευματικόν has anything to do with his real presence not being cannibalism? Would like to hear what your thoughts are on this.
Please explain the Greek words for us lay persons please.....I understand that the body of our Lord was changed after his resurrection....is that what you are referring to?
@@kurthein Well the very fact that Christ is present as bread and wine already changes the dynamic, because when cannibals eat people the eat the literal, physical flesh. And there is something true that his spiritual/glorified body changes things because his glorified body allowed Christ to do some things that normal old Joes can't do, like appearing in locked rooms.
He's 4D. He administers it to us quantumly. It'd be like us dropping some skin cells and a drop of blood into something. But he's doing it quantumly. Therefore, we don't consume it in the normal way, and we don't digest it normally. Therefore, we're still getting all four, but we're not devouring him like a duck dinner.
It is called a Sacramental I think. Science has proven the miracle. The rest is Faith as the Lord instituted the Sacrament on Holy Thursday and instructed them to do the same.
Jesus is not a son of Adam. Jesus, like Adam, are unique creations. A scientific examination of the body of Jesus would be interesting. The body of Jesus is apparently not distracting in the way our bodies are. Jesus could do nothing that wasn't the will of God his father. His body didn't lead him to manifest sin.
"Eating" is done in the same way as entering thru Jesus as "the Door" and being ingrafted as "the Vine". It is union with Christ. In the Lords Supper, we fed and become Christ's body thru the unity of the Holy Spirit. You kind of steer in that direction by admitting its not a corporeal presence, but I have to admit I don't see scripture specifically saying the presence is locally in the mouth. And of course there is Ephesians 3:17, which states unapologetically that Christ dwells in our hearts by Faith. Is not that statement a confirmation that that which happens in the supper is something achieved by the very same means and no other? Even Augustine states, "Why do you make ready your tooth and your belly? Only believe, and you have eaten already."
It seems to me that participation in Holy Communion is required for salvation, for this is what Jesus said in John 6 (NASB): 53 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 yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. If this is not a reference to Holy Communion, when and how is this fulfilled? Also the story of the 2 men who walked with Jesus on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24 gives insight into the "breaking of the bread" in Holy Communion. This story of the 2 men who unknowingly walked with Jesus had similarities to the 2 men who were crucified with Christ, and although this can be seen as a re-enactment of being crucified with Christ, there was no record of agonizing pain as they walked with Jesus and pondered the meaning of Jesus not resisting crucifixion. The "breaking of bread" is a point in space and in time (having no dimensions). Mathematically, points can be attached together an infinite number of times while remaining the same infinitely small point. This point of death on Calvary can therefore be multiplied over and over again into the multitude of "breakings of bread" at the many Holy Communion Services while still remaining a single point, as the addition of points does not cause growth in the point. This should also give insights as to how the bread was amplified and multiplied at the feedings of the multitudes, as recorded in the gospels. Ray Kidder Anglican
I politely disagree. Jesus was not speaking of literally eating His body and drinking His blood. His disciples knew the Mosaic prohibition of drinking blood; so if they thought that Jesus was speaking of literally drinking His blood, they would have reacted in severe horror. Redemption and faith are not something we receive by what we DO. No, rather it is what and in Whom we believe, and His work for us. You cited John, Ch. 6. Read verses 28 & 29 of that chapter.
@@34Packardphaeton You mentioned faith and what God does and what we do. Isn't the voicing of prayers to God something we do as works of men, and yet the answer to such prayers is a matter of faith? Similarly, there is a dichotomy between skill and luck. One needs luck to win the million dollar lottery, and no skill can produce such luck. Yet skills are required to purchase, read, and redeem such a winning ticket. There is no total separation between faith and works, such that they cannot both be present together, although there is a clear distinction between faith and works. Similarly, with Holy Communion, faith is involved in reading and fulfilling I Corinthians 10:16-17 such that the partakers come to understand with faith that this act creates a communion with the body and blood. Such an act is done with the desire for such a communion which fulfills the need to eat and drink of His body. It seems to me that the lack of faith in Holy Communion causes someone to either avoid (or dismiss) Christ, or else to come to Christ on their own (other) terms of their own imagination rather than on Christ's terms where they obey Christ's commandment to do this in remembrance of Me.
The gentleman says its not cannibalism..then proceeds to say its really Jesus body and blood in our mouths. Seems to me the gentleman is experiencing cognitive dissonance.
cannibalism, eating of human flesh by humans. The term is derived from the Spanish name (Caríbales, or Caníbales) for the Carib, a West Indies tribe well known for its practice of cannibalism. A widespread custom going back into early human history, cannibalism has been found among peoples on most continents.
All this double talk makes no sense. God is not a GOD of confusion. As to the eucharist supposedly the priest brings their Jesus down from heaven and that Jesus is a victim and obedient. But whatever. Trying to defend the indefensible. I eat the bread from heaven daily when I read the scriptures.
Matthew 26:28 Jesus calls it the blood of the covenant. Hebrews 9:20 The author quotes Moses saying the exact same words about real blood. There is no precedent here for saying "is" means "represents." 1 Corinthians 10:16 The bread and the cup are a koinonia (co-union/intimacy/participation/contribution/distribution) of the body and blood of Christ. 1 Cor 11:20 There is an objectively true Lord's Supper. Unreconciled schism within the congregation make it objectively not the Lord's Supper. 1 Cor 10:21-22 The Lord, whose name is Jealous, is jealous of his cup and his table. 1 Cor 11:23 The Lord specifically and personally revealed the Supper to Paul. 1 Cor 11:27 Misuse of the Lord's Supper is not just a bad reenactment. It makes you guilty of sin against the very body and blood of the Lord. 1 Cor 11:28-30 Mere reenactments do not require earnest soul searching on pain of punishment and death. Therefore true Christian faith in these words: "This is my body which is for you, … This is my blood of the new covenant," must take all into account.
Dr. Cooper has several videos on the meaning and substance of the Supper. Watch those. His focus in *this* video was to obviate a couple thing. (1) If you accuse sacramentalists of cannibalism, you're *not* agreeing with the early church *but with* the unbelievers who persecuted them. It was kind of him to hint at this rather than just call it out. (2) The early Christians did not save their lives by calling the Supper an allegory. Athenagoras the Apologist's defence was simply that they weren't murdering anyone to get the true body of the Lord.
I believe the words of God from the 1611 King James Bible is Jesus....I use to take communion in Catholic Mass and all I got was death and sickness from wafer and wine....God's Son is God's Word....the King James Bible bears fruit and has the same story as Jesus Christ....everyone crucifys the Holy Bible....even the modern English counterfeit Bible crucify and cut the KJV
Exodus 24:8 Moses took the blood and splashed it on the people. He said, *“Look. This is the blood of the covenant, which the Lord made with you* by means of all these words.” Hebrews 13:11 For the high priest brings the blood of the animals sacrificed for sins *INTO the Most Holy Place,* and then their bodies are burned outside the camp. 1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that *you yourselves are God’s temple,* and that God’s Spirit lives in you? Matthew 26:27-28 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, *“Drink from it all of you, This is my blood of the new testament,* which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 1 Corinthians 10:25 *Eat whatever* is sold in the meat market without asking questions for the sake of conscience. 1 Corinthians 10:27 If one of the unbelievers invites you over and you want to go, *eat whatever* you are served without asking questions for the sake of conscience.
@@Mygoalwogel ... I'm not sure of your point(s) here. To respond narrowly, in this case to the two in Matthew that you cite: in the NASB, the phrase, "of the new testament" is rendered "of the covenant". But, mainly, Jesus was not speaking of literally drinking His literal blood. His disciples, who were devout Jews, knew the Mosaic prohibition against drinking blood. If they thought that Jesus was speaking literally, they would have reacted in horror. Jesus most steadfastly and consistently upheld the Law of Moses. Clearly, Jesus did not mean literally eating His body and literally drinking His blood. Finally, I refer you to John [the one Gospel that does not record the events in the Upper Room, interestingly], Ch. 6, v. 28 & 29. His followers asked, "What must we do to work the works of God?" Jesus replied, "To work the works of God you must believe in Him Whom He sent." Thus, it is NOT something we humans DO --- it is what we believe, and believe to such a degree that it changes us. The "sacraments" [and I prefer the term, "ordinances"] do NOT confer grace or merit to humans ---- only God's direct work within an individual by faith via His grace.. establishes and confirms God's redemptive work within a human being.
@@34Packardphaeton I was responding to your cannibalism remark. It's little wonder you haven't found the truth as you are incapable of staying on topic. You can't even learn worldly skills with your scatterbrained way of reasoning. How will you learn God's wisdom? One idea at a time.
@@34Packardphaeton Excellent. I apologise for rudely jumping to that false conclusion. What are your other objections to a "true body; true blood" interpretation? You said something about a conflict with Sola Fide?
