Let's talk about the Eucharist. Is it the Body of Christ or not? Please include the whole bible verse when commenting.

Corinthians 11:27-29

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself

So we're all in agreement?

This touches on the over all debate on biblical interpretation, I, being a literalist, beleive generally that the scriptures ought to of course be taken literally, but not in the way that you might think.

What I believe is that the scriptures ought to be read and interpreted plainly. You get a sense of this by the reading in Deuteronomy 29:29:

29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

WHat is reveal by God is for all of us forever... notice that it didn't say "but those things which are revealed, the master (rabbi) must interpret", no, it says "...Unto us and to our children..."

Even children can understand it

And all throughout scripture, nowhere in it, stated that readers of needs someone to decipher its meaning. Yes, there are cases where someone needs help knowing what certain passages mean (Ex. The Ethiopian Eunuch), but for the most part, no one really needs it (i.e. Bereans in Acts 17:11

PROPER INTERPRETATION

If there's a question of whether the passages supporting the Eucharist is to be understood literally ought to be determined by what you can see (Exegesis), not what you can read-in (Issegesis),

Not only that, in bible interpretation, the most important thing to do is to see the passage in its backdrop, it's background: in the word:

Context-Context-Context.

Context is the most important way to know whether tthe passage is to be literally be taken or not. This is no secret method, we do this all the time reading ot

THE EUCHARIST

And so with the Eucharist, the way to know whether it is to be taken literally you must see it's context

Begin with vs' 5-10, then 25, read until you reach vs 63.

1st, they came looking for signs (vs. 25-26), then Jesus said to them Laber not what can perish (vs 27), how do they do that? Believe... in Him (vs 29).

2nd, It is then He began to liken Himself to a better bread, and encourage them to believe in Him. Do you see that? He did so all the way to vs 63.

He is telling them intermittently that He... is the bread of life; His body and blood has an eternal value (vs' 48-51).

But the Jews around them took that literallty did they not? They grumbled, saying how can this man tell us to eat him? Finally, in 63, He told them plainly:

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

The WORDS He is speaking to them... they are spirit and life.

He had been telling them to BELIEVE IN HIM from the VERY BEGINNING to the VERY END (vs 29, 37-39, 44, 47, ).

So... why would Jesus, in the middle of telling them to believe, introduce the ordinance of the Communion?

The only way you can be justified in believing that is when you ISOLATE passages like vs' 48-51, FROM ITS CONTEXT. By doing that, you can be justified in believing it.

That is wrong.

Just as wrong as taking your words out of context.

That, is one of the main ways of creating false doctrine; and the other way, is to read-in to passages, making it look like something that is not. As an example, the LDS used John 10:16 as an introduction to the Book of Mormon (as according to them, Jesus went to pre-colonial North America to reach out to "the other sheep" while the Other Sheep in the Bible are the Gentiles (Deuteronomy 32:21, Isaiah 42:6, Romans 1:17, & 10:19)

So again, why would Jesus introduce an ordinance, in the middle of what He had been telling them all along?

This is the reason why I don't believe in the literal interpretation of the verses used; the context of the passage is the reason why.

yes XD