Eucharist - Flesh & Blood?

[willbill]

Let me start off by saying, overall in my life, I have not believed the eucharist to be the literal flesh and blood of Christ Jesus; multiple reasons for believing so, the most being that if it were the ACTUAL body and blood, not only does it shrink the Cross of Jesus, but also the writers of the N.T. would have shed more light upon its' Nature: how to handle it, formally, prayers, etc. - we're talking about the BODY OF GOD, and His BLOOD!

I was watching this T.V. show late at night and a preacher-man was talking about how when Jesus said something metaphorical, people always understood it as such (if not, He would always clear it up, shedding the light on what He really means), and when He meant something literal, people again understood Him as such and did not question what He meant but why. Thus, preacher-man claimed, at the Last Supper of Jesus Christ, when He said, "This is My body," and, "This is My blood," the apostles understood Him to be literal, since they questioned Him not.

Now I must say, it was quite a convincing argument for the stance of eucharist being literal. Though the next day, it hit me: When I taste the eucharist, I taste literally bread and wine (along with everyone else), therefore the apostles also tasted literal bread and wine - something that would have got them thinking, "Well, this is bread and wine." Christ, as He has before, did not correct their thinking, since indeed there was nothing wrong with it.

What I am saying is, God never has and never will perform a miracle with nothing happening as a result - the "miracle" of turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ Jesus (with the bread and wine staying in their original condition before and after the miracle) is the clearest indication to us, and the apostles it was as well. Amen.

 

[Wgw]

Alas your view clashes with that of the Apostles amd their immedoate successors. In John, our Lord says we must eat his flesh and drink His blood. Recall how this alienated most of his disciples; only the twelve remained for the Last Supper.

Now, fast forward to the year 90, and we have St. John in his last years, St. Clement as Bishop of Rome, and St. Ignatius in chains on his way to be fed to lions in the arena in Rome. St. Ignatius speaks of the Eucharist as the real body and blood of our Lord, and John and Clement do not stop him.

Fast forward to the year 150. Justin Martyr, a disciple of Polycarp, expresses this voew and is not corrected. Fast forward another 30 years. St. Irenaeus, a pupil of Justin Martyr, thoroughly demolishes the faith of the Gnostic cults. Many of these cults held an Orthodox view of the Eucharist, celebrations of which feature prominently in the apocryphal Acts of John and Acts of Thomas. But St. Irenaeus does not call out the heretics on this point.

The oldest surviving liturgies in the Third Century, namely, the Anaphora of St. Hippolytus, celebrated to this day by the Ethiopians as the Liturgy of the Apostles, the Liturgy of St. Mark, the Liturgy of Ss. Addai and Mari, and the Liturgy of St. James, make the physical, corporeal presence of the flesh and blood of our Lord in the Sacrament crystal clear. The oldest intact bishops service book, the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis, a fourth century book belonging to a fourth century bishop, a friend of Ss. Athanasius and Anthony, also clearly expresses this doctrine; the service it describes is very similiar to the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark.

Later in that same century, we have attested the divine Liturgies of St. Basil, the Twelve Apostles, St. John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Roman Canon, and the proto Ambrosian Rite in Milan. And perhaps even more importantly, we have De Sacramentiis by St. Ambrose, and the Catechtical Homiles of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, both intended to prepare candidates for baptism, which explain clearly that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of our Lord. In the fifth century, St. Severus of my church begins serving a Presanctified Liturgy in which the consecrated Eucharist is stored in a tabernacle and served to the congregation; previously the reserved sacrament was only taken by deacons to the sick and dying.

In 600, Pope St. Gregory the Great documents a similiar rite in use in Constantinople, the Byzantine Liturgy of the Presanctified, and thus it spreads to Rome. Though textually and ritually dofferent from St. Severus's service, this liturgy the Byzantines used like my church, on weekdays in Lent, when the joyous Divine Liturgy was viewed as inappropriate and a more sombre atmosphere needed, but paradoxically, the Eucharist it was felt should be consumed more frequently in Lent. The Roman Catholic Church adopts this same liturgy with minor modifications for use on Good Friday, and it remains without signifigant change until the reforms of Pius XII in 1955. Even today they still celebrate a modified version of it.

Thus, for nearly two thousand years the Orthodox and Catholics have believed in what the Roman Catholics like to call "transsubstantiation."

Disagree with it if you must, but bear in mind, it is sithout a dount the ancient faith of the Apostles. And if you dont believe me on that part, take a look at the liturgical instructions comtained in the Didache.

 

[DoubleZero]

Alas your view clashes with that of the Apostles amd their immedoate successors. In John, our Lord says we must eat his flesh and drink His blood. Recall how this alienated most of his disciples; only the twelve remained for the Last Supper.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[willbill]

It is written, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

 

[willbill]

Alas your view clashes with that of the Apostles amd their immedoate successors. In John, our Lord says we must eat his flesh and drink His blood. Recall how this alienated most of his disciples; only the twelve remained for the Last Supper.

Now, fast forward to the year 90, and we have St. John in his last years, St. Clement as Bishop of Rome, and St. Ignatius in chains on his way to be fed to lions in the arena in Rome. St. Ignatius speaks of the Eucharist as the real body and blood of our Lord, and John and Clement do not stop him.

Fast forward to the year 150. Justin Martyr, a disciple of Polycarp, expresses this voew and is not corrected. Fast forward another 30 years. St. Irenaeus, a pupil of Justin Martyr, thoroughly demolishes the faith of the Gnostic cults. Many of these cults held an Orthodox view of the Eucharist, celebrations of which feature prominently in the apocryphal Acts of John and Acts of Thomas. But St. Irenaeus does not call out the heretics on this point.

The oldest surviving liturgies in the Third Century, namely, the Anaphora of St. Hippolytus, celebrated to this day by the Ethiopians as the Liturgy of the Apostles, the Liturgy of St. Mark, the Liturgy of Ss. Addai and Mari, and the Liturgy of St. James, make the physical, corporeal presence of the flesh and blood of our Lord in the Sacrament crystal clear. The oldest intact bishops service book, the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis, a fourth century book belonging to a fourth century bishop, a friend of Ss. Athanasius and Anthony, also clearly expresses this doctrine; the service it describes is very similiar to the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark.

Later in that same century, we have attested the divine Liturgies of St. Basil, the Twelve Apostles, St. John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Roman Canon, and the proto Ambrosian Rite in Milan. And perhaps even more importantly, we have De Sacramentiis by St. Ambrose, and the Catechtical Homiles of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, both intended to prepare candidates for baptism, which explain clearly that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of our Lord. In the fifth century, St. Severus of my church begins serving a Presanctified Liturgy in which the consecrated Eucharist is stored in a tabernacle and served to the congregation; previously the reserved sacrament was only taken by deacons to the sick and dying.

In 600, Pope St. Gregory the Great documents a similiar rite in use in Constantinople, the Byzantine Liturgy of the Presanctified, and thus it spreads to Rome. Though textually and ritually dofferent from St. Severus's service, this liturgy the Byzantines used like my church, on weekdays in Lent, when the joyous Divine Liturgy was viewed as inappropriate and a more sombre atmosphere needed, but paradoxically, the Eucharist it was felt should be consumed more frequently in Lent. The Roman Catholic Church adopts this same liturgy with minor modifications for use on Good Friday, and it remains without signifigant change until the reforms of Pius XII in 1955. Even today they still celebrate a modified version of it.

Thus, for nearly two thousand years the Orthodox and Catholics have believed in what the Roman Catholics like to call "transsubstantiation."

Disagree with it if you must, but bear in mind, it is sithout a dount the ancient faith of the Apostles. And if you dont believe me on that part, take a look at the liturgical instructions comtained in the Didache.

You have spoken about the traditions of men. Now I ask, where is it in scripture?

 

[willbill]

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

So be it.

 

[Righttruth]

Excerpts from the book "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?"

1. Misleading communion

It was the great dedicated and devoted work of saints and clergy of Roman Catholics that preserved many writings of apostles and disciples. They also diligently made several copies for all to refer in their service of sharing the Gospel. Without them and their work there was no question of Protestants claiming the authority of the writings! However, Catholics give more importance to the traditions, rituals and defined sacraments! We do not find much quoting of verses from Paul’s epistles in their decrees and subsequent writings of their saints. Whereas almost all theological discussions of Protestants are based very much on Paul’s writings! Paul’s epistles might not have dominated in the thinking of Catholics, but, certainly, he has left a permanent dominance in the ritual of communion that was instituted by him alone!


Paul being crafty, as admitted by him, (2 Corinthians 12:16: “But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile”), he came up with a solution for the disorderly behaviour in the notorious Corinthian church with an introduction of this ritual much against the words of the Lord! Let us read what Paul wrote in this regard:


“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” (1 Corinthians 11: 23 to 26).


You see here clearly Paul telling a ‘white lie’ that the Lord had asked the apostles to repeat the Lord’s last supper as a token of ‘remembrance’ of His death! Nothing can be achieved by glorifying the death of any person for that matter! Particularly, in the case of the Lord, it is His resurrection that needs to be proclaimed boldly! Paul was not a witness to the Last Supper. Mathew who was there never mentioned about ‘remembering’ in his book of the Gospel. This was what he recorded:


“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom’ ” (Matthew 26: 26 to 29).


Not only the Lord never mentioned about repeating this as a ‘remembrance’ act, but also said that He will never drink fruit of the vine until the day in Father’s kingdom.


What about John who was there at that time. He also never mentions about observing this ritual as a ‘remembrance’ of the Lord’s death. Instead he elaborated on the significance of this observance that should be made clear to all those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour with the following supporting verses:


“Then Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him’ ” (John 6:53 to 56).


If we referred to other writings considered as a part of apocryphal, you will find apostles breaking the bread signifying this acceptance symbolically and observed more or less immediately after baptism.


Breaking of bread indicated in the book of Acts on some occasions also informed of common communal meal on the first day of a week that was observed in Jerusalem Church with believers. As new believers were added daily in Jerusalem after the Pentecost, breaking of bread and drinking the vine was also observed symbolically in tune with the above verses of John practically every week.


We read as follows:


“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2: 42 to 47).


So we can see that both communal meal and communion being observed with new believers. Communion was not meant as a ritual to be observed with a regular frequency in the absence of newly baptized members. Communion was meant as a celebration of winning souls as directed by Jesus. It was not meant as a ritual with all old believers frequently!


Therefore, the ritual of communion was not established by the Lord during the Last Supper to be observed frequently to commemorate His death. The Gospel of Mark did not mention that ritual has to be observed as a token of ‘remembrance’. Gospel of Mark was basically written on behalf of Peter by Mark. Of course, Peter was a partaker during the Last Supper.


What about Luke. He was not a party in the Last Supper. This is what we see in his book of the Gospel:


“For I say unto you, ‘I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, ‘Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.’ And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me’ (v.19). Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you’ (v.20)” (Luke 22:16 to 20).


Here also the Lord said that He will not eat and drink further until everything is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. Only in the verse 19, we find the word ‘remembrance’ mentioned. However, further research indicates that verses 19 and 20 were later insertions and not found in some ancient manuscripts! Additions may be the short work of biased Paul’s people later to support Paul’s verses in 1 Corinthians that have been indicated earlier! 1 Corinthians was written earlier to Luke’s Gospel so also other three books.


What was instituted on the day of Last Supper was the new covenant (testament) in blood as indicated in the verse 20 above, so also in Matthew 26:28, not communion as a ritual that needed to be observed at any desired frequency with same people over and over again! It will be meaningful if observed whenever new believers are added. That pleases God too: “Likewise, I say unto you, ‘there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth’ ” (Luke 15:10).

[Part 1 to be continued]

 

[Righttruth]

[Part 2 continued from above]

It is interesting to note that all kinds of different frequencies are observed by Christendom. Unfortunately, what is forgotten is the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Law and brought an end to all kinds of rituals that associated with the OT dictum. His Last Supper also happened to be last Passover for His believers. It was no longer an annual ritual or of any frequency, but of observance of seeking His communion through His words of preaching. Those who prayerfully study His words (Bread) anytime are actually observing the communion, and that should lead to a holy life (blood) with proper understanding. That is precisely, spiritually speaking, eating the bread of life and drinking of fruit of vine that lead to eternal life!


Hence, when the spirit behind the communion is not observed, one can expect all kinds of bizarre concepts and thinking based on the ritual of communion established by Paul.


Salvation Army denomination does not observe this at all at any time. Jehovah Witnesses observe this once in a year with a hint to many not to eat elements offered to them because they believe that those who partake in the elements are spurred by the spirit and will be one amongst 12000 groups indicated in the book of Revelation! Brethren Assemblies observe every week so also Catholics. Many other denominations observe once in a month along with regular Sunday service separately in the morning for convenience! Some observe in the evenings specially gathered for this purpose with teaching also. Catholics believe that the elements turn into the body and blood of Jesus mysteriously during this observance!


Brethren Assemblies have this observed at the beginning of their worship services. Many walk out after this formality ignoring the sharing of the word which is more important, and it is the one that spiritually denotes the communion and life, not mere breaking of bread! Many denominations insist on single loaf of bread and a glass of wine for sharing. Actually unleavened bread was used during Passover of the OT times and when Jesus had His Last Supper. In other places pieces of bread and several small cups of grape juice will be served to the believers where they are seated. At other places, believers kneel before the altar and get compressed piece of bread and grape juice in a small cup individually administered by a pastor. Puritans had objected to kneeling for the elements earlier several centuries ago.


What is that we can conclude from all these divergent procedure? Jesus gave the Great Commission of making disciples and baptizing them along with teaching what He had commanded the apostles during His ministry. There are three things involved in His directive, namely, reaching out, baptizing and teaching what He had said. Unfortunately, the first two is taken care of whereas the last one is ignored because it cannot be easily practiced! So the easy way out was to pick the easiest thing of participating in the formality of communion ignoring the spiritual understanding of the same as indicated in the Gospel of John quoted earlier.


Therefore, the spiritless formality of observing the communion came into the fore very soon in the early history of the churches. This was further encouraged by Paul with a ‘white lie’ of using the word ‘remembrance’ in one of his early letters when the Gospel was not fully available in written form!


Therefore, I need to reiterate that unless Paul’s thinking is supported by other books of the Bible in the NT, it is better to ignore such instructions from him. They were not meant for us but only applicable to people of that place and situation with that special problem for that time--being given room for spiritual growth in subsequent days, months or years!


Spiritual growth is not an instantaneous phenomenon! Apostles made mistakes and grew gradually in their faith and knowledge of the Saviour leaving behind their old selves, so also Paul. Paul with his previous pharisaic background and religious bent of mind offered solutions to ill reputed Corinthian church that led to religious ritual of communion! Jesus never planned on a new religion; His method was fulfilment of the ceremonial laws leading to a higher spiritual growth in thoughts and deeds. But there is always a tendency to revert back to easy religion and rituals with man-made doctrines.


Hence, a meticulous study of the scriptures clearly indicates that it was a ritual instituted by Paul to tackle the problem in notorious Corinthian Church established by him!


What is not difficult to follow: ritual of communion or abiding by the blood Covenant that is the law of Christ? Obviously, it is the communion procedure. People, naturally, settle for convenient arrangements avoiding the harder aspects, giving unnecessary importance and branding for an easy observance! Jesus never wanted this to be observed as a routine ritual!


Even Paul did not fix up a frequency for this, like, daily, weekly, monthly or yearly observance! Paul was never with Jesus in His earthly ministry, so he missed out many important tenets preached by Jesus! All the apostles grew in spiritual stature gradually. Paul still had his pharisaic mind in the beginning! He simply came up with a solution at Corinth with a ritual, influenced by his old nature with an eagerness to solve the problem based on the reports he had received!


That was not the case with the apostles. If you happened to go through the apocryphal books, such as, Acts according to Peter and Thomas, you will find that they observed the spirit of communion based on what Jesus Christ preached: "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. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him” (John 6:53-56).


The new believers who accepted Him as their Saviour should also believe in what He said symbolically with a spiritual sense. The communion was observed in the early Churches-- that directly involved apostles--with new believers understanding the spirit behind what the Lord had said.


What is spiritual cannot be converted to a routine practice! The communion will be meaningful only, as I have indicated before, when it is celebrated with new believers immediately after baptism. That also gives credence to the ‘Great Commission’ advocated by the Lord as a part of the responsibility of a believer. Heaven will rejoice when a new believer is brought before the Lord! What other occasions other than communion is fit to solemnize this event with the angels and other believers?


What is happening now in Churches? All kinds of bizarre thinking and belief go with that! Thinking that Jesus Christ will become body and blood in the elements of bread and wine is not supported by the Bible! Such an uncalled for belief will make everyone a kind of a cannibal! Not only that, it is a sadistic thinking of expecting Jesus Christ to get crucified and shed blood whenever communion is observed!


In the book of Acts breaking of the bread may signify both communal meal and communion or just one of the two. This performance was recorded several times since new batches of believers were added in succession in Jerusalem after the Pentecost.


Communion was never observed before the Pentecost. Why did they not observe before if it had been indicated during the Last Supper? Its first observance was recorded after 3000 people were baptized: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers”

(Acts 2:41 & 42).


Communion has nothing to do with our salvation, that too, when it is being carried out as a ritual! Many churches give too much of importance to this part of service relegating the word of God! In some churches people come only for this and walk away immediately afterwards without sharing the word, and in some others where word is shared first and communion taken later, people join for latter later! What is important: inspired words of the God or the elements of the communion? It is a typical tendency of people going after created elements rather than hearing the words of the Creator!


Now churches excommunicate people who do not go by its doctrines and its governance. They are prevented from participating in the communion! A big deal! Who can prevent a person in hearing the word of God?


In some other churches, one has to compulsorily participate for certain number of times in a year to claim a right to exercise his franchise in church elections! These people are after secular power and rights down on earth, and they do not want to set their minds on things spiritual up in heaven!


These different beliefs, procedures and practices clearly prove that the entire communion concept is a man-made doctrine, and it is not one single truth! Meaningless rituals ended with spiritual teaching of Jesus. Of course, it is worthwhile to mention here that baptism is not a ritual for an individual! Immersion water baptism is done once for a believing person in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Insistence of re-baptism for joining another denomination is a big sham!

 

[Wgw]

You have spoken about the traditions of men. Now I ask, where is it in scripture?

"Keep fast to the traditions we have taught you, whether by word or epistle."

Note that sola acriptura is itself unscriptural.

The traditions of the Apostles are not the traditions of men, having been imparted by God through the teaching of our Lord and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The traditions of men are rather those pagan mythologies that were predominant in the classical world, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the Pharisaical and Rabinnical lore, the Mishna amd Haggadah, the "Oral Torah" which eventually became codified in the Talmud. Thus, not mythologizing in the ancient manner nor developing various man made traditions to attemot to avoid the possibility of transgressing the laws in the Pentateuch, those are what we are to avoid.

Note also the contents of the New Testament are themselves a tradition: the canon of St. Athanasius. None of the books of the NT contain an index and very few make references to others (some of the Pauline epistles are cross referenced, and Acts refers to Luke). So why are books like Jude, 1 Peter, or the Apocalypse, or the Gospel of Mark (whose contents are almost completely duplicated by Matthew and Luke, making it arguably redundant?), included? Tradition.

 

[Wgw]

[Part 2 continued from above]

It is interesting to note that all kinds of different frequencies are observed by Christendom. Unfortunately, what is forgotten is the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Law and brought an end to all kinds of rituals that associated with the OT dictum. His Last Supper also happened to be last Passover for His believers. It was no longer an annual ritual or of any frequency, but of observance of seeking His communion through His words of preaching. Those who prayerfully study His words (Bread) anytime are actually observing the communion, and that should lead to a holy life (blood) with proper understanding. That is precisely, spiritually speaking, eating the bread of life and drinking of fruit of vine that lead to eternal life!


Hence, when the spirit behind the communion is not observed, one can expect all kinds of bizarre concepts and thinking based on the ritual of communion established by Paul.


Salvation Army denomination does not observe this at all at any time. Jehovah Witnesses observe this once in a year with a hint to many not to eat elements offered to them because they believe that those who partake in the elements are spurred by the spirit and will be one amongst 12000 groups indicated in the book of Revelation! Brethren Assemblies observe every week so also Catholics. Many other denominations observe once in a month along with regular Sunday service separately in the morning for convenience! Some observe in the evenings specially gathered for this purpose with teaching also. Catholics believe that the elements turn into the body and blood of Jesus mysteriously during this observance!


Brethren Assemblies have this observed at the beginning of their worship services. Many walk out after this formality ignoring the sharing of the word which is more important, and it is the one that spiritually denotes the communion and life, not mere breaking of bread! Many denominations insist on single loaf of bread and a glass of wine for sharing. Actually unleavened bread was used during Passover of the OT times and when Jesus had His Last Supper. In other places pieces of bread and several small cups of grape juice will be served to the believers where they are seated. At other places, believers kneel before the altar and get compressed piece of bread and grape juice in a small cup individually administered by a pastor. Puritans had objected to kneeling for the elements earlier several centuries ago.


What is that we can conclude from all these divergent procedure? Jesus gave the Great Commission of making disciples and baptizing them along with teaching what He had commanded the apostles during His ministry. There are three things involved in His directive, namely, reaching out, baptizing and teaching what He had said. Unfortunately, the first two is taken care of whereas the last one is ignored because it cannot be easily practiced! So the easy way out was to pick the easiest thing of participating in the formality of communion ignoring the spiritual understanding of the same as indicated in the Gospel of John quoted earlier.


Therefore, the spiritless formality of observing the communion came into the fore very soon in the early history of the churches. This was further encouraged by Paul with a ‘white lie’ of using the word ‘remembrance’ in one of his early letters when the Gospel was not fully available in written form!


Therefore, I need to reiterate that unless Paul’s thinking is supported by other books of the Bible in the NT, it is better to ignore such instructions from him. They were not meant for us but only applicable to people of that place and situation with that special problem for that time--being given room for spiritual growth in subsequent days, months or years!


Spiritual growth is not an instantaneous phenomenon! Apostles made mistakes and grew gradually in their faith and knowledge of the Saviour leaving behind their old selves, so also Paul. Paul with his previous pharisaic background and religious bent of mind offered solutions to ill reputed Corinthian church that led to religious ritual of communion! Jesus never planned on a new religion; His method was fulfilment of the ceremonial laws leading to a higher spiritual growth in thoughts and deeds. But there is always a tendency to revert back to easy religion and rituals with man-made doctrines.


Hence, a meticulous study of the scriptures clearly indicates that it was a ritual instituted by Paul to tackle the problem in notorious Corinthian Church established by him!


What is not difficult to follow: ritual of communion or abiding by the blood Covenant that is the law of Christ? Obviously, it is the communion procedure. People, naturally, settle for convenient arrangements avoiding the harder aspects, giving unnecessary importance and branding for an easy observance! Jesus never wanted this to be observed as a routine ritual!


Even Paul did not fix up a frequency for this, like, daily, weekly, monthly or yearly observance! Paul was never with Jesus in His earthly ministry, so he missed out many important tenets preached by Jesus! All the apostles grew in spiritual stature gradually. Paul still had his pharisaic mind in the beginning! He simply came up with a solution at Corinth with a ritual, influenced by his old nature with an eagerness to solve the problem based on the reports he had received!


That was not the case with the apostles. If you happened to go through the apocryphal books, such as, Acts according to Peter and Thomas, you will find that they observed the spirit of communion based on what Jesus Christ preached: "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. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him” (John 6:53-56).


The new believers who accepted Him as their Saviour should also believe in what He said symbolically with a spiritual sense. The communion was observed in the early Churches-- that directly involved apostles--with new believers understanding the spirit behind what the Lord had said.


What is spiritual cannot be converted to a routine practice! The communion will be meaningful only, as I have indicated before, when it is celebrated with new believers immediately after baptism. That also gives credence to the ‘Great Commission’ advocated by the Lord as a part of the responsibility of a believer. Heaven will rejoice when a new believer is brought before the Lord! What other occasions other than communion is fit to solemnize this event with the angels and other believers?


What is happening now in Churches? All kinds of bizarre thinking and belief go with that! Thinking that Jesus Christ will become body and blood in the elements of bread and wine is not supported by the Bible! Such an uncalled for belief will make everyone a kind of a cannibal! Not only that, it is a sadistic thinking of expecting Jesus Christ to get crucified and shed blood whenever communion is observed!


In the book of Acts breaking of the bread may signify both communal meal and communion or just one of the two. This performance was recorded several times since new batches of believers were added in succession in Jerusalem after the Pentecost.


Communion was never observed before the Pentecost. Why did they not observe before if it had been indicated during the Last Supper? Its first observance was recorded after 3000 people were baptized: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers”

(Acts 2:41 & 42).


Communion has nothing to do with our salvation, that too, when it is being carried out as a ritual! Many churches give too much of importance to this part of service relegating the word of God! In some churches people come only for this and walk away immediately afterwards without sharing the word, and in some others where word is shared first and communion taken later, people join for latter later! What is important: inspired words of the God or the elements of the communion? It is a typical tendency of people going after created elements rather than hearing the words of the Creator!


Now churches excommunicate people who do not go by its doctrines and its governance. They are prevented from participating in the communion! A big deal! Who can prevent a person in hearing the word of God?


In some other churches, one has to compulsorily participate for certain number of times in a year to claim a right to exercise his franchise in church elections! These people are after secular power and rights down on earth, and they do not want to set their minds on things spiritual up in heaven!


These different beliefs, procedures and practices clearly prove that the entire communion concept is a man-made doctrine, and it is not one single truth! Meaningless rituals ended with spiritual teaching of Jesus. Of course, it is worthwhile to mention here that baptism is not a ritual for an individual! Immersion water baptism is done once for a believing person in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Insistence of re-baptism for joining another denomination is a big sham!

It is illogical and impious of you to accuse St. Paul of putting words in our Lord's mouth, while using Luke-Acts as a source to back up your claims, given that Acts establishes the validity of St. Paul's Apostolate. In fact the tradition of the Church is that Luke was chiefly the disciple of St. Paul and his Gospel reflects what Paul taught him, whereas St. Mark was the disciple of St. Peter and wrote down his teachings. This is why historically the Church of Alexandria, which was founded by St. Mark, was ranked second in precedence before Rome and ahead of Antioch, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 130 AD.

 

[DoubleZero]

1Cor_10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Sorry, but a bunch of Jews who were forbidden to drink blood did not sit with Jesus Christ and drink His blood. They never would have done that as God had forbidden them. Jesus was speaking spiritually and the scriptures bear that out very clearly. The RCC's interpretation is not biblical.

Jesus capped off His lesson by saying the flesh profiteth nothing and it was in the context of Him talking about His flesh. It is His Spirit that is important.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[Wgw]

1Cor_10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Sorry, but a bunch of Jews who were forbidden to drink blood did not sit with Jesus Christ and drink His blood. They never would have done that as God had forbidden them. Jesus was speaking spiritually and the scriptures bear that out very clearly. The RCC's interpretation is not biblical.

Jesus capped off His lesson by saying the flesh profiteth nothing and it was in the context of Him talking about His flesh. It is His Spirit that is important.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

So all those first, second, third and fourth century martyrs and church fathers who disagree with you are wrong then eh?

This isnt about Roman Catholicism; this is about what the early church believed. And our surviving writings suggest the early Christians who came after the Apostles disagreed with your opinion.

I have never been a Catholic but it is my firm conviction that on many blessed occasions I have received the actual body and blood of our Lord in the appearance of bread and wine, but on three occasions with immediate miraculous aftereffects.

 

[DoubleZero]

So all those first, second, third and fourth century martyrs and church fathers who disagree with you are wrong then eh?

All that matters is what Jesus says and what the Bible says not what men in various centuries believed.

Throughout the Bible, the Lord is referred to as the Rock so it is very easy to understand that the Holy Spirit was giving the revelation to Peter as to who Christ really was. And upon Peter's confession off this massive truth that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Church will be built. There is no other foundation that the Church is built on but Christ Jesus.

Every man must receive this similar revelation or else they will believe any number of things.

In the context where Jesus was talking about His disciples eating His flesh and drinking His blood, Jesus explains a few verses later that the flesh profits nothing and it is the Spirit that gives life. And we know from other places in the NT and by experience that we don't have to go to a religious building to receive Christ since He indwells the believer from the first time they received Him by faith.

More explanation:

​

 

[Wgw]

But our Lord says that the Gates of Hell will not prevail abainst His church, and youre basically saying that all Chrsitians from the Apostolic Age until you apparently were wrong on dogma. You do realize that 100% of your knowledge of Jesus Christ comes through books written and preserved by the early Church?

 

[willbill]

Smells like the extreme pride that ran through the Israelites... ^^

 

[Wgw]

Who is more proud, the man who piously follows the teachings of our Lord and the ancient interpretation of the Apostles and their disciples. and his Bishop, who has srudied all the these things, or the man who reads the Bible, perhaps not even entirely, and makes himself his own Pope, daring to teach doctrines never believed in by the early church?

Have you read Galatians 4:2? Because you seem to be preaching a different Gospel right now.

 

[willbill]

Fellow man, it's time you read the bible without the help of other men whom cannot save a single soul, let alone their own. "Faith in Christ alone." - remember that

 

[Wgw]

Fellow man, it's time you read the bible without the help of other men whom cannot save a single soul, let alone their own. "Faith in Christ alone." - remember that

The Bible doesnt say that. Martin Luther added the word "Alone" when translating; it is not in the Greek text. What is more, what St. Paul said has to be reconciled with what St. James the Just, the brother of our Lord and the head of the Church in Jerusalem, wrote: "Faith without works is dead."

 

[willbill]

"Faith without works is dead."

Amen.

 

[Righttruth]

It is illogical and impious of you to accuse St. Paul of putting words in our Lord's mouth, while using Luke-Acts as a source to back up your claims, given that Acts establishes the validity of St. Paul's Apostolate. In fact the tradition of the Church is that Luke was chiefly the disciple of St. Paul and his Gospel reflects what Paul taught him,

Lord has nothing to do with what Paul imagined! Acts of Luke, friend of Paul, may not give any authority with regard to the assumed apostleship of Paul. Luke's Gospel is not entirely based on what he heard from Paul. In fact, Paul did not know much of preaching of Jesus.

whereas St. Mark was the disciple of St. Peter and wrote down his teachings. This is why historically the Church of Alexandria, which was founded by St. Mark, was ranked second in precedence before Rome and ahead of Antioch, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 130 AD.

A good possibility.