Replies

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." - 1 Corinthians 11:23-29

Did you notice in the scripture that even after the blessing and consecration of the bread, and just before it is eaten, the bread is still only bread. It's not flesh or body or divinity or soul or spirit or anything else. It's still only bread -- consecrated bread, but bread nonetheless.

I guess Paul and the early church were just not privy to the magic formulae discovered by the Transubstantiationists --

Actually the very verse you quoted shows a bit of a different picture. Allow me to emphasize some different aspects of it:

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

I'll grant you that the language here is somewhat ambiguous as it does refer to bread. But Paul is also quite clearly connecting this bread with the Body and Blood of the Lord.

I can see how this passage can be thought to support consubstantiation ala the Lutheran understanding, but certainly not a wholesale rejection of the Body and Blood. That's just not supported.

I guess Paul and the early church were just not privy to the magic formulae discovered by the Transubstantiationists --

What's the magic formula for the inspired nature of Scripture? What does "inspired" look like? Sound like? Feel like? I look at the Bible, and I just see paper and ink. If it's more than that, you need to prove concretely that the Bible is more than just a book, just as you expect concrete proof that the bread is no longer substantially "bread" but the substance of Christ. What do you see and why?

Did you notice in the scripture that even after the blessing and consecration of the bread, and just before it is eaten, the bread is still only bread.

When reading an article posted to the forum, it's always good practice to read it through in its entirety. The very next paragraph reads:

In the previous chapter the apostle wrote, "The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is communion with the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:16). His words are clear. The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so.