A Tale of Two Last Suppers

[spockrates]

So I'm an Evangelical thinking of becoming Catholic. Some might be surprised to hear the reason--the Bible. Specifically, what changed my mind was John, chapter 6, where Jesus says this:

"48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

(John 6)

​

These words give new meaning to His words at the Last Supper, where He said, "This is my body, which will be given up for you." You see, it's as though there are two tales of Jesus' words in John's gospel--the tale of His saying the bread and wine are symbols of His sacrifice, and the tale of His saying the bread and wine are the real presence of Himself. I can see how the Catholic interpretation (which is the later) makes sense.

But I'm not sure I'm understanding the passage correctly or making the right decision. I mean, Socrates said:

I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible!

(Cratylus, 428)

​

If I'm deceived, I hope someone will take the time to show me how, that I might prayerfully consider what she or he has to say.

 

[Goinheix]

Let see if your interpretation is correct or wrong.

For whta I understand is that the bread catholics eat is the same bread Jesus was talking about in the Lords Supper and also in Jhon. And that bread is literally the body and flesh of Jesus Christ. In that case, all those eat from eat shall not die. Literally shall not die.

Do you know of any catholic person that literally did not die?

Probably the "not die!" is not literal and actually means the eternal salvation in heaven. If this is a correct interpretation we already commences to leave the literal interpretation and enter the ground of the methaforic and simbolic. How far shall we continue into the methaforis and symbolic?

Supose that the methafore and symbol only apply that far...not to the body or flesh wich remain literal. In that case...do we get eternel life by eating the catholic bread being the body/flesh of Christ? Is that the key of the salvation.

It looks like things are not that literal. Most probably ALL is not literal but metaforic and symbolic.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I wouldnt want to persuade you either way concerning your own decisions.

I only want to point out that Christ ate before and after His ressurection with his disciples. A study of the sanctuary (the first) is the SHEWbread, because (likewise) it DOTH SHEW the Lords death. The bread (of the first) is even shown while HE was yet standing (in otherwords, not buried and resurrected). However, the second time he ate with them (shown as breaking break) and him being known in it was after He was resurrected even according to the pattern. The HIDDENmanna exists behind the second veil within the Holy of Holies (or heaven itself). So one (which is of the first) SHEWS ( play on words) as in SHEWbread) (((TILL))) he COME, **the second time** he administers it again, its here He becomes known to them (all the while vanishing before their eyes) whereas their eyes were holden previously that they "should not" know Him. Which is interesting likewise in the sense that "this IS eternal life, that they might KNOW HIM (The True God and eternal life)

His flesh is likewise the veil too, is why they couldnt know him by it, though its interesting to see two breads... the shew, and the hidden, and likewise in accord with both, one doth shew (in the first) TILL he come, and the other (afterwards) when he come a second time to them) is where He was still unknown but the second time (after His resurrection) is the time he was known of them by it.

Another interesting thing is the eating with Him AFTER His resurrection is the one mentioned by the apostles in acts too, Its there (as is likewise a respresentative of the hidden) in the second (and of heaven) is His life manifesting to them.

Just some things you could study out for yourself if they help any

 

[spockrates]

Let see if your interpretation is correct or wrong.

For whta I understand is that the bread catholics eat is the same bread Jesus was talking about in the Lords Supper and also in Jhon. And that bread is literally the body and flesh of Jesus Christ. In that case, all those eat from eat shall not die. Literally shall not die.

Do you know of any catholic person that literally did not die?

Thanks for the reply, Goin. No I know of no one who has never physically died.

Probably the "not die!" is not literal and actually means the eternal salvation in heaven. If this is a correct interpretation we already commences to leave the literal interpretation and enter the ground of the methaforic and simbolic. How far shall we continue into the methaforis and symbolic?

Yes, or could it be a literal death that is different from the physical one we have seen others experience? Consider these words that the Apostle John also wrote:

Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

(Revelation 20:6, 21:8)


If Jesus was speaking of this second death, then wouldn't it be different from the death that comes first?

Supose that the methafore and symbol only apply that far...not to the body or flesh wich remain literal. In that case...do we get eternel life by eating the catholic bread being the body/flesh of Christ? Is that the key of the salvation.

Catholics tell me it is not the key, but a key.

It looks like things are not that literal. Most probably ALL is not literal but metaforic and symbolic.

That might be true if Jesus was not speaking of only symbolically dying, but I'm thinking the second death is an actual death, rather than a metaphorical one. What do you think?

 

[spockrates]

I wouldnt want to persuade you either way concerning your own decisions.

Thanks for the reply, Fire. I only want to be persuaded of the truth!

I only want to point out that Christ ate before and after His ressurection with his disciples. A study of the sanctuary (the first) is the SHEWbread, because (likewise) it DOTH SHEW the Lords death. The bread (of the first) is even shown while HE was yet standing (in otherwords, not buried and resurrected). However, the second time he ate with them (shown as breaking break) and him being known in it was after He was resurrected even according to the pattern.

Yes, I can see how the bread of the Jewish Temple was only symbolic of the One who would later come as the Bread of Life. The truth I'm seeking is whether the bread Catholics ate after Jesus' resurrection was merely symbolic, too--or whether it was actually the real body of Christ.

The HIDDENmanna exists behind the second veil within the Holy of Holies (or heaven itself). So one (which is of the first) SHEWS ( play on words) as in SHEWbread) (((TILL))) he COME, **the second time**

Why could it not show until He came the first time?

... he administers it again, its here He becomes known to them (all the while vanishing before their eyes) whereas their eyes were holden previously that they "should not" know Him. Which is interesting likewise in the sense that "this IS eternal life, that they might KNOW HIM (The True God and eternal life)

Catholics would say that they know Christ better than most Protestants, because they know more about Him. They say that they know, for example, that He is the bread and wine.




Seriously, though--do you think that knowing (and believing) in Christ requires knowing (and believing) what He says?

His flesh is likewise the veil too, is why they couldnt know him by it, though its interesting to see two breads... the shew, and the hidden, and likewise in accord with both, one doth shew (in the first) TILL he come, and the other (afterwards) when he come a second time to them) is where He was still unknown but the second time (after His resurrection) is the time he was known of them by it.

Another interesting thing is the eating with Him AFTER His resurrection is the one mentioned by the apostles in acts too, Its there (as is likewise a respresentative of the hidden) in the second (and of heaven) is His life manifesting to them.

Just some things you could study out for yourself if they help any

Not sure what you are saying, there. Are you saying Christ's resurrected body is not real (but merely symbolic) flesh and blood?

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Jesus said man does not live by( bread alone,) but by( every Word) that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.

The literal bread is for the body, and profits only the flesh.

The living bread is the Word of God, which is spiritual, and is food for the soul.

Jesus said the flesh profits nothing, it is the Spirit that makes alive.

 

[spockrates]

Jesus said man does not live by( bread alone,) but by( every Word) that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.

The literal bread is for the body, and profits only the flesh.

The living bread is the Word of God, which is spiritual, and is food for the soul.

Jesus said the flesh profits nothing, it is the Spirit that makes alive.

Thank you InSpirit for trying to speak in truth. Let's consider thoughtfully what you have to say.



I believe you are speaking of these words of Christ in the same chapter:

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

(John 6)

​

When Jesus said, "the flesh counts for nothing," did He mean that His flesh that was sacrificed on the cross counted for nothing?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Thanks for the reply, Fire. I only want to be persuaded of the truth!

good

Yes, I can see how the bread of the Jewish Temple was only symbolic of the One who would later come as the Bread of Life. The truth I'm seeking is whether the bread Catholics ate after Jesus' resurrection was merely symbolic, too--or whether it was actually the real body of Christ.

Its not a catholic only thing, we all break bread, the first IS the SHEWbread because (as Paul confirms as well) DOTH SHEW the Lords death (TILL) He COME

Why could it not show until He came the first time?

Because thats the pattern laid out in Moses, a twofold picture, in the first as with Christ there was the SHEWbread.. DO THIS in rememberance of ME, take eat this is MY BODY given for thee, and the cup likewise.

The HIDDENmanna is behind the SECOND vail, behind the second is the HOLY OF HOLIES (thats *where* it is) and the Holy of Holies (in truth) represents heaven itelf, and is of Him (the true bread of heaven) which ministers likewise the HIDDENman just as (ie) their eyes were HOLDEN that they SHOULD NOT **KNOW HIM** but he is known (the second time) in the breaking of this bread. It follows the same pattern, and that is what Paul was saying when he said, THE HOLY GHOST WAS SIGNIFYING through these things that the way INTO the Holiest was NOT made manifest WHILE the first tabernacle was STILL standing.

Was he speaking of the temple that took 46 years to build? or the temple of His body? Or was it while HE was yet with them? Because a covenant is not in force while men liveth, but after they have died (it is in force) and after this same truth he come again and broke bread with them.

On the cross the veil of the temple was rent FROM TOP to bottom (ie) THE way is opened (in truth) through the veil of his flesh.

Catholics would say that they know Christ better than most Protestants, because they know more about Him. They say that they know, for example, that He is the bread and wine.

Well I dont wish to speak or gossip about anyone

Seriously, though--do you think that knowing (and believing) in Christ requires knowing (and believing) what He says?

Not sure what you are saying, there. Are you saying Christ's resurrected body is not real (but merely symbolic) flesh and blood?

People see it differently (agreed) but just listen to Paul and dont partake of that which DOTH SHEW unworthily. When you do it is in remembrance of His sacrifice (TILL) he come, is all I will say

 

[spockrates]

good



Its not a catholic only thing, we all break bread, the first IS the SHEWbread because (as Paul confirms as well) DOTH SHEW the Lords death (TILL) He COME

Yes, but wasn't Paul was speaking of the bread we eat today, instead of the bread that was in the Jewish Temple on display?

Because thats the pattern laid out in Moses, a twofold picture, in the first as with Christ there was the SHEWbread.. DO THIS in rememberance of ME, take eat this is MY BODY given for thee, and the cup likewise.

The HIDDENmanna is behind the SECOND vail, behind the second is the HOLY OF HOLIES (thats *where* it is) and the Holy of Holies (in truth) represents heaven itelf, and is of Him (the true bread of heaven) which ministers likewise the HIDDENman just as (ie) their eyes were HOLDEN that they SHOULD NOT **KNOW HIM** but he is known (the second time) in the breaking of this bread. It follows the same pattern, and that is what Paul was saying when he said, THE HOLY GHOST WAS SIGNIFYING through these things that the way INTO the Holiest was NOT made manifest WHILE the first tabernacle was STILL standing.

By saying, "it follows the same pattern," are you saying the bread we eat in Church today is only symbolic of Christ just as the bread the Jewish Temple had on display was only symbolic of Christ?

Was he speaking of the temple that took 46 years to build? or the temple of His body? Or was it while HE was yet with them? Because a covenant is not in force while men liveth, but after they have died (it is in force) and after this same truth he come again and broke bread with them.

On the cross the veil of the temple was rent FROM TOP to bottom (ie) THE way is opened (in truth) through the veil of his flesh.

Well I dont wish to speak or gossip about anyone

Agreed. I will also do my best to not misrepresent what Catholics have told me.

People see it differently (agreed) but just listen to Paul and dont partake of that which DOTH SHEW unworthily. When you do it is in remembrance of His sacrifice (TILL) he come, is all I will say

Yes, we break the bread in remembrance of what He did. Catholics say they do the same, but they say they also believe the bread is not only symbolic of His loving sacrifice. It is also the real presence of His resurrected body, His human soul and His Divinity. So how do I know who is speaking the truth? How can I determine whether the bread is merely a metaphor, or is actually the Bread of Life?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Just study it on your own and do exactly what Paul says. Its just that the pattern is in Hebrews as Jesus (died) for our sins (and likewise) was raised for our justification but IN HIM is shown both, what is SHOWN and what is HIDDEN, an eating with Him (before) and after (where they knew Him) and no more after the flesh (but the Spirit)

However He is also that shown in Abraham Melchizedek, who ministered the bread and the wine to Him too

Because we know...

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.


John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Whereas it was after likewise...

Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


He brought forth the bread and the wine....

Psalm 104:15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.


And likewise....


Psalm 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

His name meaning...

Heb 7:2 first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

Fulfilling the things concerning Him (by the resurrection from the dead, it says...)

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

However, likewise... (which are the two comprised of the Kingdom) see last verses)

Ephes 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

And likewise...

John 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Likewise we could see a picture of this here as well...

Gen 14:20 And (Melchizedek said) blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he (Abraham) gave him tithes of all

He ministers it....

2Cr 9:10 Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness)

Again...

Heb 7:2 first being by interpretationKing of righteousness



Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and **peace**, and joy in the Holy Ghost.


And likewise...



...also King of Salem, which is, King of **peace**;


Back to the King of righteousness...

Phm 1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.


Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Theres patterns everywhere

Just do as Paul says, I dont speak against what he said, or contrary to him, if you partake unworthily it speaks of drinking damnation unto yourself, however you can have damnation other ways too

Likewise here....

Romans 3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Same here...

Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Hope that helps

 

[spockrates]

Just study it on your own and do exactly what Paul says. Its just that the pattern is in Hebrews as Jesus (died) for our sins (and likewise) was raised for our justification but IN HIM is shown both, what is SHOWN and what is HIDDEN, an eating with Him (before) and after (where they knew Him) and no more after the flesh (but the Spirit)

However He is also that shown in Abraham Melchizedek, who ministered the bread and the wine to Him too

Because we know...

Whereas it was after likewise...

He brought forth the bread and the wine....

And likewise....

His name meaning...

Fulfilling the things concerning Him (by the resurrection from the dead, it says...)

However, likewise... (which are the two comprised of the Kingdom) see last verses)

And likewise...

Likewise we could see a picture of this here as well...

He ministers it....

Again...

And likewise...

Theres patterns everywhere

Just do as Paul says, I dont speak against what he said, or contrary to him, if you partake unworthily it speaks of drinking damnation unto yourself, however you can have damnation other ways too

Likewise here....

Same here...

Hope that helps

Thanks for trying to help, but I think it is only clear as mud!



I feel like the Ethiopian who met the evangelist in Acts:

30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. 31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.



(Acts 8)


​

Think of yourself as the evangelist and me as the one reading the Scriptures and asking what it means. Don't ask me to bite off more than I can chew. Give me one small bite at a time, please.





It seems to me that you are speaking of two things--what Jesus meant when He said He was the Bread of Life, and what Jesus meant at the Last Supper when He held up the bread and said, "This is my body..." I'm OK with you explaining what He meant in either event, but please take it one step at a time, one spoonful at a time. I suppose I'm not ready to devour a whole spiritual meal--at least not yet!

 

[Fireinfolding]

Im not a teacher. However, I was only adding in for your consideration not for trying to persuade you, you gotta be persuaded in your own mind and be your own workman before the Lord

a little mud in the eye never hurt anyone, just wash it off

 

[spockrates]

Im not a teacher. However, I was only adding in for your consideration not for trying to persuade you, you gotta be persuaded in your own mind and be your own workman before the Lord

a little mud in the eye never hurt anyone, just wash it off

Well said analogy. I like your sense of humor.



You might not be an teaching authority, but it seems you do have knowledge I don't yet understand. Perhaps it's OK for you to answer my questions? If you don't see it as morally wrong to answer my questions and to make what you know more clear to me, please let me know.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I do appreciate the vote of confidence but I am no teacher, I just serve up the scriptures (His words) not mine, I certainly wouldnt contradict what is plain here, but I sorta prefer to post and fly off, leaving it for the person to come to their own.

Round these parts its just best

I wouldnt persuade you against your own conviction and conscience anyway.

Be blessed

 

[spockrates]

I do appreciate the vote of confidence but I am no teacher, I just serve up the scriptures (His words) not mine, I certainly wouldnt contradict what is plain here, but I sorta prefer to post and fly off, leaving it for the person to come to their own.

Round these parts its just best

I wouldnt persuade you against your own conviction and conscience anyway.

Be blessed

I understand. Don't want to ask you to do anything you don't think you should do. Before you go, please consider what these words mean to you:

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect... .

(1 Peter 3:15)

​

I do appreciate the time you've graciously given me. If you change your mind and decide you are prepared to give me an answer, I'll be grateful.



May God richly bless you, Fire.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Gotcha, My hope is in His resurrection and the newness of life we have in Him and by Him (and through the power of His glorious grace, the power given us) so we can walk as Jesus walked. That we shall see Him as He is for as He is so also are we "in this world".

He who has this hope in himself purifieth himself as He himself is pure

Be not moved away from "the hope of" the gospel

And God bless you richly too spockrates

 

[Catherineanne]

So I'm an Evangelical thinking of becoming Catholic. Some might be surprised to hear the reason--the Bible. Specifically, what changed my mind was John, chapter 6, where Jesus says this:

"48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

(John 6)

​

These words give new meaning to His words at the Last Supper, where He said, "This is my body, which will be given up for you." You see, it's as though there are two tales of Jesus' words in John's gospel--the tale of His saying the bread and wine are symbols of His sacrifice, and the tale of His saying the bread and wine are the real presence of Himself. I can see how the Catholic interpretation (which is the later) makes sense.

But I'm not sure I'm understanding the passage correctly or making the right decision. I mean, Socrates said:

I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible!

(Cratylus, 428)

​

If I'm deceived, I hope someone will take the time to show me how, that I might prayerfully consider what she or he has to say.

You are correct. Please be aware that the Orthodox, Episcopalian and Roman Catholic churches, and I think the Lutheran as well, all accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Roman Catholicism states how this happens, the others accept it as more of a mystery, but no less real.

Therefore, any apostolic church is open to you, should you choose to investigate further.

I wish you well in your search.

 

[Catherineanne]

Let see if your interpretation is correct or wrong.

For whta I understand is that the bread catholics eat is the same bread Jesus was talking about in the Lords Supper and also in Jhon. And that bread is literally the body and flesh of Jesus Christ. In that case, all those eat from eat shall not die. Literally shall not die.

You added a word to Scripture. You added the word 'literally'.

On whose authority do you do this?

So, to clarify, your additional word is NOT Scripture but interpretation. Interpretation does NOT have Scriptural status; it may be right or it may not be right, but it is not Scripture.

Therefore, staying with what the Bible says, those who eat and drink as the Lord says will not die, and this is true. There is no such thing in all of earth and heaven as a dead Christian; that is a contradiction in terms.

1 Kings 18:36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: "O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command.

Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Mark 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"

Luke 20:38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."

Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.

Acts 7:32 I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look.

http://bible.cc/matthew/22-32.htm


When these were written Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were no longer alive, and yet God is asserted as the God of the Living.

QED.

 

[spockrates]

Gotcha, My hope is in His resurrection and the newness of life we have in Him and by Him (and through the power of His glorious grace, the power given us) so we can walk as Jesus walked. That we shall see Him as He is for as He is so also are we "in this world".

He who has this hope in himself purifieth himself as He himself is pure

Be not moved away from "the hope of" the gospel

And God bless you richly too spockrates

Seems we have a shared hope! I'm hoping to find the truth, too. If you decide to help me, let me know.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Seems we have a shared hope! I'm hoping to find the truth, too. If you decide to help me, let me know.

I have done all I am able, I know no more, cant go beyond your measure, Im spent