Lords supper is symbolic

Philip_B · Apr 17, 2017

jimmyjimmy said:
Your personal experience is not an argument.

I would not care to dissolve into a sea of existentialism - however surely the experience of S/Paul on the Road to Damascus suggests that personal experience may be an argument.

just saying

jimmyjimmy · Apr 17, 2017

Philip_B said:
I would not care to dissolve into a sea of existentialism - however surely the experience of S/Paul on the Road to Damascus suggests that personal experience may be an argument.

just saying

The Bible is God's word, and I'm sure of that because I feel a warmth which grows from my extremities into my heart each time I touch it. . .

That's not an acceptable argument to me, and I'm a Christian!

The apostle Paul's experience, as well as Moses', have been incorporated into scripture. Outside of that, they would not matter to me.

1stcenturylady · Apr 17, 2017

JoeP222w said:
The Roman Catholic catechism teaches that the Lord's Supper as celebrated in the Mass is a bloodless sacrifice.

What does that mean seeing as our New Covenant is based on the blood of Jesus, symbolized by the Cup of the New Covenant - the sign of our New Covenant, taking the place of the sign of the Old Covenant, the Sabbath.

(Please don't take offense at my use of the word "symbolized." I doubt whether we believe it is Christ's actual blood, or a symbol will be judged by God, just as long as we remember Christ.)

JoeP222w · Apr 18, 2017

1stcenturylady said:
What does that mean seeing as our New Covenant is based on the blood of Jesus, symbolized by the Cup of the New Covenant - the sign of our New Covenant, taking the place of the sign of the Old Covenant, the Sabbath.

(Please don't take offense at my use of the word "symbolized." I doubt whether we believe it is Christ's actual blood, or a symbol will be judged by God, just as long as we remember Christ.)

The Catholic catechism teaches that Christ must be re-sacrificed every day, showing the belief that the cross was an insufficient sacrifice, when Jesus said "It is finished." The Roman Catholic Mass is a blasphemy.

Norbert L · Apr 18, 2017

chaz491 said:
Guys:

Can anyone cite the Bible verse that says that the Eucharist in the Lords supper is symbolic? Catholics believe it is literally Christ's body and blood. Protestants say it is a symbol. Can anyone show where the Bible says it is a symbol?

The closest verse that leads to that direction of being symbolic of something can be found in John 6:63 when Jesus is dealing with the event where numerous disciples stopped following Him because of teaching about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all." ESV

He uses this kind of teaching tool and some Christians are unaware of the very real point. Like in John 10:9 where it is more plain to see, Jesus is a door and I doubt no one here actually believes that when you have a door as part of a church it is actually Jesus. However He represents a very real door we do go through in order to be saved.

Another sure thing that is very real and present during the Eucharist and is actually made of flesh and blood can be found within something the apostle Paul stated in Colossians 1:27. Christ in you, and without you the wine and bread are just a drink and some food.

Albion · Apr 18, 2017

DrBubbaLove said:
Like God totally became also a Man. So in appearance and in every possible way including our senses, that is Man - yet God is also very much and actually present there. The idea anyway is not contrary to what we know God can do. Also is the most fitting description of what the Apostles described as a hard teaching, rather than imagining all of that discourse was misunderstood by everyone and God did not straighten it out for His Apostles. That He didn't do so would be evident in that the people those men taught reflect much of the same things I posted here in their writings and no living Apostles objected to that.

There has never been a teaching of any Church that takes it as having to taste like blood and raw human flesh. Christians in Roman days were accused of cannibalism because they (and some of us still now) talk that way about the Eucharist. There have been Christian denying Jesus could be both God and man because they do not understand how God could do that. I don't have that problem either there or with the Eucharist.
[adding - I cannot speak to what Luther believed, but I seem to recall it was vague or something to believe or not.]

Luther was not vague. He believed it was the real physical body and blood of Christ just as you've explained here in your post. But he didn't believe in the Catholic teaching that the bread and wine cease to exist...and that point wasn't addressed in your post, as thorough as it was in other respects.

So although I don't think that it does amount to cannibalism, I can see how anyone who knows the Catholic POV here and disagrees with it has reason to raise the issue. My goodness, in both the Medieval church and today's church there are stories believed by church members of miracles happening at Mass where the host turns into a baby when the priest elevates it or drips actual drops of blood, etc.

Panevino · Apr 18, 2017

Ken Rank said:
The life IS in the blood and God says not to ingest the blood. Look Pan, believe what you want but you are only looking at part of what he did. Here is the full story...

Adam was made without sin, he existed in a state of perfection. He wanted for nothing... it was "as if" he was plugged into God. God was his source for everything... food, understanding, even fellowship.

Adam was given authority (dominion) over everything... all of creation. So when Adam sinned, first of all, it was "as if" he unplugged from God and now had to grow his own food but also determine on his own, what was right and wrong. In addition to those punishments, and those were punishments, is that he would now taste death, something he wasn't designed to do. The clock toward his demise was now ticking.... but not just his demise, ALL OF CREATION will one day die. Plants, animals, humans... even other planets and stars... ALL OF CREATION groans as it awaits its redemption (Romans 8:22). Why all of creation? Because when Adam fell all that he had dominion over also fell.

How do you reverse this punishment? The opposite has to occur. We had a perfect man who sinned and the result was death. So if we take a perfect man who doesn't sin, the result will be life.

The second Adam (Messiah Yeshua) was born without sin. Like the first Adam, he was tempted but unlike the first Adam he never gave in to temptation and thus when he died, the grave could not contain him. Why? Because the grave was designed for sin not perfection. So Yeshua rose from the grave and in doing so earned back the dominion Adam had lost. Yeshua has earned the right to perfect everyone and everything but.... he hasn't done it yet. We have an earnest (deposit/downpayment) in the form of the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 1:22 and 2 Corinthians 5:5) toward what WILL COME when he returns.

We take the cup and the bread in remembrance of this work he has done for us. His body was broken and his blood spilled to reverse the curse of sin and death. But he doesn't relive this week after week... if you believe he does... fine. I don't and won't.... the work is complete, it is finished... and when he returns he will apply what he earned the right to do and we will be changed.

Blessings and peace.
Ken

Thanks Ken

I've been busy..
Just bear in mind the following
1. Catholics don't teach that he is sacrificed or relives it week after week, thats a straw man.
2. For Catholics this memorial is more profound than a reminder, it's a true personal encounter. Drawing us to the foot of the cross and a participation with our High priests offering, the heavenly marriage supper of the lamb, rev5:6 &19:9
We go back into the community after mass with his blood and converted hearts in us, greater than the OT congregation who merely had the blood sprinkled on them(exo24:8).
Preaching Christ crucified 1cor1:13 and proclaiming the lords death till he comes.1 Cor11:26
While it won't convince anyone The original Passover blood on the door posts and lintel creates three marks that present a shadow / outline of the cross.

2. Regarding your concern about a contradiction of his offering of blood/body before the cross at the last supper, please remember that He does it in a real but anticipatory manner looking forward to it. Just as now the Eucharist looks back to the cross.

Jesus does not confuse his grammar (think of the "before Abraham, I AM"john8:58) He has a purpose. And I trust that he chose to say "this "is" my blood...which "is" shed.." for a reason, and that it is no problem in our worldview to see that God is free to operate outside of time.

Ken Rank · Apr 18, 2017

Panevino said:
Thanks Ken

I've been busy..
Just bear in mind the following
1. Catholics don't teach that he is sacrificed or relives it week after week, thats a straw man.
2. For Catholics this memorial is more profound than a reminder, it's a true personal encounter. Drawing us to the foot of the cross and a participation with our High priests offering, the heavenly marriage supper of the lamb, rev5:6 &19:9
We go back into the community after mass with his blood and converted hearts in us, greater than the OT congregation who merely had the blood sprinkled on them(exo24:8).
Preaching Christ crucified 1cor1:13 and proclaiming the lords death till he comes.1 Cor11:26
While it won't convince anyone The original Passover blood on the door posts and lintel creates three marks that present a shadow / outline of the cross.

2. Regarding your concern about a contradiction of his offering of blood/body before the cross at the last supper, please remember that He does it in a real but anticipatory manner looking forward to it. Just as now the Eucharist looks back to the cross.

Jesus does not confuse his grammar (think of the "before Abraham, I AM"john8:58) He has a purpose. And I trust that he chose to say "this "is" my blood...which "is" shed.." for a reason, and that it is no problem in our worldview to see that God is free to operate outside of time.

The bible is full of metaphors. Was Paul a drink offering like he claimed? Is God really a rock or a fortress? Was messiah himself a literal sacrifice in the sense of being roasted, quartered and eaten? Before he gave himself for us, before even one drop of blood was shed... he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood." It wasn't literal then because he was speaking prophetically about something that was going to happen very shortly. And if it wasn't literal then, it might not be today.

He then said to do this to remember him and so I do... at Passover when he did it.

You see the Welch's grape juice turning into his blood weekly despite God having commanded us to avoid blood even AFTER his ascension (Acts 15) and I do it as a memorial during a Passover Seder which is exactly what the Last Supper was.

So who is correct? I don't care...

I am serious.... we are both doing this as we understand it and are convicted to do it. Like I said, one of us is correct or we are both wrong and I am secure enough in my faith to find out I am wrong. Why? Because this isn't rebellious intent... we are both doing what we believe is correct. So... please continue doing what you are doing as will I.

Blessings Pan.
Ken

Panevino · Apr 18, 2017

Ken Rank said:
The bible is full of metaphors.

not all of the metaphors enjoy OT typology that is explicitly drawn out in the NT

Was Paul a drink offering like he claimed? Is God really a rock or a fortress? Was messiah himself a literal sacrifice in the sense of being roasted,

no, but why would that be an issue

quartered

I recall something about Jewish tradition about the spikes through a Passover lamb roast that forms a cross

and eaten?

yes, for Catholics/orthodox/Copts/chaldeans etc

Before he gave himself for us, before even one drop of blood was shed... he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood."

he also said "which is shed"

It wasn't literal then because he was speaking prophetically

he used present tense. Remember he is the word

about something that was going to happen very shortly. And if it wasn't literal then, it might not be today.
He then said to do this to remember him and so I do... at Passover when he did it. You see the Welch's grape juice turning into his blood weekly despite God having commanded us to avoid blood even AFTER his ascension (Acts 15) and I do it as a memorial during a Passover Seder which is exactly what the Last Supper was.

with real sacrifice not just a reminder, see Luke 24:30-31, 35

So who is correct? I don't care... I am serious.... we are both doing this as we understand it and are convicted to do it. Like I said, one of us is correct or we are both wrong and I am secure enough in my faith to find out I am wrong. Why? Because this isn't rebellious intent... we are both doing what we believe is correct. So... please continue doing what you are doing as will I.

Blessings Pan.
Ken

I completely understand the cognitive dissonance is huge from both perspectives and don't mean to be pushy. All the best

Ken Rank · Apr 18, 2017

Panevino said:
not all of the metaphors enjoy OT typology that is explicitly drawn out in the NT no, but why would that be an issue I recall something about Jewish tradition about the spikes through a Passover lamb roast that forms a crossyes, for Catholics/orthodox/Copts/chaldeans etc he also said "which is shed" he used present tense. Remember he is the word with real sacrifice not just a reminder, see Luke 24:30-31, 35
I completely understand the cognitive dissonance is huge from both perspectives and don't mean to be pushy. All the best

If you are suggesting I have cognitive dissonance you both incorrect and bordering on being offensive. I don't agree with you but respect you right to come to the conclusion and practice you enjoy. You don't have that same respect for me, that is obvious. So... take care, there is no sense in continuing.

1stcenturylady · Apr 18, 2017

JoeP222w said:
The Catholic catechism teaches that Christ must be re-sacrificed every day, showing the belief that the cross was an insufficient sacrifice, when Jesus said "It is finished." The Roman Catholic Mass is a blasphemy.

I'm not sure if that is what they meant; all I know is we, ourselves, need to die to the flesh daily. Do they teach that too? If anyone has a Catholic catechism, could they reproduce what it says in a quote in context.

Panevino · Apr 18, 2017

Ken Rank said:
If you are suggesting I have cognitive dissonance you both incorrect and bordering on being offensive. I don't agree with you but respect you right to come to the conclusion and practice you enjoy. You don't have that same respect for me, that is obvious. So... take care, there is no sense in continuing.

Apologies I honestly did not mean that as derogatory. The different view of the Eucharist is such a big shift of perspective that it's hard to comprehend from both sides, I meant it in the way that I consider myself to have a congnitive dissonance when trying to myself to consider and believe your view(and vice verse). Not sure if that makes sense. Please no offense intended.

Panevino · Apr 18, 2017

Ken Rank · Apr 18, 2017

Panevino said:
Apologies I honestly did not mean that as derogatory. The different view of the Eucharist is such a big shift of perspective that it's hard to comprehend from both sides, I meant it in the way that I consider myself to have a congnitive dissonance when trying to myself to consider and believe your view(and vice verse). Not sure if that makes sense. Please no offense intended.

It does and thank you. Many blessings.

Der Alte · Apr 18, 2017

Panevino said:
not all of the metaphors enjoy OT typology that is explicitly drawn out in the NT no, but why would that be an issue I recall something about Jewish tradition about the spikes through a Passover lamb roast that forms a crossyes, for Catholics/orthodox/Copts/chaldeans etc he also said "which is shed" he used present tense. Remember he is the word with real sacrifice not just a reminder, see Luke 24:30-31, 35
I completely understand the cognitive dissonance is huge from both perspectives and don't mean to be pushy. All the best

In the late 1st-early 2nd century Justin Martyr wrote about the many shadows of the cross in the OT.

The First Apology of Justin. Chapter LV
And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the prophet, “The breath before our face is the Lord Christ.” (From Lam_4:20, LXX.) And the power of this form is shown by your own symbols on what are called “vexilla” [banners] and trophies, with which all your state possessions are made, using these as the insignia of your power and government, even though you do so unwittingly.
Chapter XL
God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb,61 which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb.
Chapter LX
Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross, and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, “If ye look to this figure, and believe, ye shall be saved thereby.” (Num_21:8) And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died, and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death.
Chapter XC
“When the people,” replied I, “waged war with Amalek, and the son of Nave (Nun) by name Jesus (Joshua), led the fight, Moses himself prayed to God, stretching out both hands, and Hur with Aaron supported them during the whole day, so that they might not hang down when he got wearied. For if he gave up any part of this sign, which was an imitation of the cross, the people were beaten, as is recorded in the writings of Moses; but if he remained in this form, Amalek was proportionally defeated, and he who prevailed by the cross. For it was not because Moses so prayed that the people were stronger, but because, while one who bore the name of Jesus (Joshua) was in the forefront of the battle, he himself made the sign of the cross.

Philip_B · Apr 18, 2017

JoeP222w said:
The Catholic catechism teaches that Christ must be re-sacrificed every day, showing the belief that the cross was an insufficient sacrifice, when Jesus said "It is finished." The Roman Catholic Mass is a blasphemy.

Form the Catholic Catechism Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of the Eucharist

1406 Jesus said: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; . . . he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and . . . abides in me, and I in him" (Jn 6:51, 54, 56).

1407 The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church's life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church.

1408 The Eucharistic celebration always includes: the proclamation of the Word of God; thanksgiving to God the Father for all his benefits, above all the gift of his Son; the consecration of bread and wine; and participation in the liturgical banquet by receiving the Lord's body and blood. These elements constitute one single act of worship.

1409 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, that is, of the work of salvation accomplished by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, a work made present by the liturgical action.

In view of what I do find in the Catholic Catechism, I do not see that the claim made is substantiated.

DrBubbaLove · Apr 18, 2017

Albion said:
Luther was not vague. He believed it was the real physical body and blood of Christ just as you've explained here in your post. But he didn't believe in the Catholic teaching that the bread and wine cease to exist...and that point wasn't addressed in your post, as thorough as it was in other respects.

So although I don't think that it does amount to cannibalism, I can see how anyone who knows the Catholic POV here and disagrees with it has reason to raise the issue. My goodness, in both the Medieval church and today's church there are stories believed by church members of miracles happening at Mass where the host turns into a baby when the priest elevates it or drips actual drops of blood, etc.

Again, the question as I recall without even looking back was what does it taste like and also are we not cannibals, not whether it is still bread and wine.
So any answer I could give to the question of what does the Eucharist taste like, is meant to refute the idea that no change has really occurred. So properly speaking the Eucharist USUALLY looks and taste like what it still appears to be, rather thankfully than looking or tasting like what it has become.

People make all sorts of wild claims, and in my experience the Catholic world of today has fewer wild ones than I have actually heard myself in the evangelical world. Am not sure why one should Catholics immune to that ability however. Am aware of no miracle officially declared as such by the Church that the Eucharist appeared as a baby. Which means as a Catholic am free to believe such claims or not, but should give same consideration of who is making them as I would someone saying 911 was a government created conspiracy to justify taking oil fields.

So in spite of what someone on the internet, say like a Terry Colafrancesco, may claim about miracles my being Catholic does not require me to believe Terry at all - and if the Bishop warns the faithful from even going to see Terry's show then I actually have cause to not just reject his claims (even without knowing details) but also stay away from his group of monkeys, as in not my monkeys. As a new Catholic being told not to, I must admit the curiosity got the better of me, so I disobeyed the Bishop somewhat.

DrBubbaLove · Apr 18, 2017

Greg Merrill said:
Regarding receiving "the real presence of Jesus" when taking communion... I don't have to wait for a communion service for this. The real presence of Jesus has continually been with me from the moment He saved me. If anyone should feel "sorry" it is people like me, for people that have to wait for a service before they receive "the real presence." I say that with heart sincerity, not with argument or criticism.

Wrong thought. The idea is not that I have to wait for His Presence, but that I can experience and share in the added benefit of a real physical Presence.

We are all suppose to be a Holy Temple, for God to dwell there or maybe sadly not at times.
What I should not want to wait for if I believe it exists is a spiritual aide in the form of a supernatural spiritual food for my soul, taken into my body in an very physical intake of His Presence that is suppose to help me remain that Holy Temple. It is not a magic pill, and has no effect if not taken in the faith given us by God that it is real and for our aide.

So the Catholic in grave unrepentant sin or in some error/crisis of faith is not getting what they should from participating in that Sacrament. No different than imagining just because one ONLY went through the motions, one's marriage is a valid Sacrament. Having an I do for a "Fish Love" sort of idea of marriage would invalidate that act and likely lead to failure of that union too.

Greg Merrill · Apr 18, 2017

DrBubbaLove said:
Wrong thought. The idea is not that I have to wait for His Presence, but that I can experience and share in the added benefit of a real physical Presence.

We are all suppose to be a Holy Temple, for God to dwell there or maybe sadly not at times.
What I should not want to wait for if I believe it exists is a spiritual aide in the form of a supernatural spiritual food for my soul, taken into my body in an very physical intake of His Presence that is suppose to help me remain that Holy Temple. It is not a magic pill, and has no effect if not taken in the faith given us by God that it is real and for our aide.

So the Catholic in grave unrepentant sin or in some error/crisis of faith is not getting what they should from participating in that Sacrament. No different than imagining just because one ONLY went through the motions, one's marriage is a valid Sacrament. Having an I do for a "Fish Love" sort of idea of marriage would invalidate that act and likely lead to failure of that union too.

According to 1Co 6:19 Christians are not "supposed" to be a holy temple, they are the temple of God. We don't need any help to "remain" the temple of God, for Heb 13:5 shows that Jesus has told us "I will never leave you..." He continues to remain in us, as does the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of the Father, making us ever continually the temple of God.

DrBubbaLove · Apr 18, 2017

Greg Merrill said:
According to 1Co 6:19 Christians are not "supposed" to be a holy temple, they are the temple of God. We don't need any help to "remain" the temple of God, for Heb 13:5 shows that Jesus has told us "I will never leave you..." He continues to remain in us, as does the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of the Father, making us ever continually the temple of God.

I can agree not everything we can do to screw up our relationship would have the Holy Spirit depart, but even as a Baptist some people talked as if that could happen - the unforgivable sin for example.
How am I to imagine God wanting to be in an unholy place?
How could I envision a "temple of God" that is not Holy?
The whole reason God has to separate Himself from us as He first did with Adam, is usually described in terms of being unholy. Some folks even describe as an inability for us to continue to exist fully in His Presence or in full view of I guess in our current state.

Again am reminded of C.S Lewis regarding how even the most holy among us must have lives viewed as horrific to Him:

“I have been trying to make the reader believe that we actually are, at present, creatures whose character must be, in some respects, a horror to God, as it is, when we really see it, a horror to ourselves. This I believe to be a fact: and I notice that the holier a man is, the more fully he is aware of that fact.”
from The Problem of Pain

Which I now see as opposed to a frequent evangelical view of God as our good Buddy who can overlook our filth to Him. It downplays the difference of our current nature and even our glorified nature with a proper understanding of God. Brings Him down to more like a human father level.

Lords supper is symbolic

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Pardoned Rebel

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Well-Known Member

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Similar threads