Communion/ Eucharist/Lord's Table

[Tangible]

"For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Then he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Luke 22:18-20 (and similarly elsewhere).

I read this passage and I see "This is my body" and "This cup [of wine] is the new covenant in my blood."

Apparently you read this passage and see "This is NOT my body" and "This cup [of wine] is NOT the new covenant in my blood."

Think about it. Jesus, a living person, sits with his living disciples, having a dinner of real food. He talks about drinking "the fruit of the vine", meaning actual, real wine, unless he intends on drinking his own blood. (which would be truly bizarre!) Then he holds up a piece of real, actual bread, breaks it(!) and says “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Obviously he is speaking figuratively, since he cannot be both a whole living person and dead, broken bread.

Try it yourself. Have a meal with family or friends, break a piece of bread off a loaf, and say that it's part of your body. They would think that you are drunk or crazy.

At the beginning of the paragraph he accurately refers to wine as the fruit of the vine. It's still the fruit of the vine -- actually the fermented juice of the fruit of the vine -- when he holds up a bowl of it and says, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.". He symbolically refers to the wine as “the new covenant in my blood." It's not a legal contract or his blood, it's real wine that they were to drink.

The Bible means exactly what it says; there is no need to add to it or interpret it to fit your imagination. John refers to Jesus as the Word of God. Is he literally a word or is he a real person? Mark and others wrote "The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone." There is all kinds of symbolism throughout Scripture. Jesus is not bread and wine, he is not a word, he is not a cornerstone, he is not a lamb, etc. etc. etc.

Jesus is a living person. He was born a living human being. (Did Mary give birth to a loaf of bread?) He grew up, walked and talked, dined with others, performed miracles, argued with other people, turned over tables in the temple, did many other acts, then was crucified and died, was put in a tomb, and was resurrected to heaven.

He was not wine and bread.

The rest of this is just rationalistic, naturalistic mumbo-jumbo -- an attempt to discredit the clear words of Christ as recorded in at least four places in scripture as being untrue because it's not rational. It completely ignores who is the one who is speaking the words.

It fascinates me how otherwise miracle-believing Christians have no problem believing that Jesus could turn water into wine, calm the seas with his word, multiply loaves and fish, heal the lame, give sight to the blind, and raise people from the dead get all worked up when it is stated that when Jesus said "This is my body" and "This is my blood" that he actually meant what he said, even if we can't understand how it could be.

Is it a challenge for you to set aside your natural skepticism, your rationalistic engagement with the world, your 21st century materialistic experience of reality, and simply accept that the words of Our Lord are true?

Is it consistent with the revealed character of Jesus of Nazareth to challenge the willingness of believers to believe something that seems impossible?

It's as if modern Christians were willing to believe in miraculous wonders performed by God as long as they stay at arm's length, safely contained within a pseudo-mythological book that we like to say we believe is true. But if the repercussions of a doctrine of miracles invades your reality, if it means that you could actually go to a specific place at a specific time and be present when God acts supernaturally to give miraculous gifts to ordinary people like you, well that's a bridge too far. It can't be true. It must be at least a misunderstanding, if not an outright fabrication with malicious intent.

Because if it were actually true, the consequences would be devastating to our perception of reality.

 

[pescador]

I read this passage and I see "This is my body" and "This cup [of wine] is the new covenant in my blood."

Apparently you read this passage and see "This is NOT my body" and "This cup [of wine] is NOT the new covenant in my blood."

The rest of this is just rationalistic, naturalistic mumbo-jumbo -- an attempt to discredit the clear words of Christ as recorded in at least four places in scripture as being untrue because it's not rational. It completely ignores who is the one who is speaking the words.

It fascinates me how otherwise miracle-believing Christians have no problem believing that Jesus could turn water into wine, calm the seas with his word, multiply loaves and fish, heal the lame, give sight to the blind, and raise people from the dead get all worked up when it is stated that when Jesus said "This is my body" and "This is my blood" that he actually meant what he said, even if we can't understand how it could be.

Is it a challenge for you to set aside your natural skepticism, your rationalistic engagement with the world, your 21st century materialistic experience of reality, and simply accept that the words of Our Lord are true?

Is it consistent with the revealed character of Jesus of Nazareth to challenge the willingness of believers to believe something that seems impossible?

It's as if modern Christians were willing to believe in miraculous wonders performed by God as long as they stay at arm's length, safely contained within a pseudo-mythological book that we like to say we believe is true. But if the repercussions of a doctrine of miracles invades your reality, if it means that you could actually go to a specific place at a specific time and be present when God acts supernaturally to give miraculous gifts to ordinary people like you, well that's a bridge too far. It can't be true. It must be at least a misunderstanding, if not an outright fabrication with malicious intent.

Because if it were actually true, the consequences would be devastating to our perception of reality.

You say, "Apparently you read this passage and see "This is NOT my body" and "This cup [of wine] is NOT the new covenant in my blood." No, I read it as it was intended: a symbolic statement creating a ritual for us to follow until Jesus returns. Again, how can the flesh-and-blood Jesus say that (literally) bread is his body and wine is his blood while he, the real person of Jesus, is sitting right of front of his disciples.

You say that my words of faith are "just rationalistic, naturalistic mumbo-jumbo -- an attempt to discredit the clear words of Christ as recorded in at least four places in scripture as being untrue because it's not rational." I can imagine a Pharisee saying such judgmental things, but it surprises me that someone who claims to be a Christian comes out with such insulting nonsense. I am not making "an attempt to discredit the clear words of Christ" because I believe what the Bible says instead of what you say.

"Is it a challenge for you to set aside your natural skepticism, your rationalistic engagement with the world, your 21st century materialistic experience of reality, and simply accept that the words of Our Lord are true?" Of course not. I accept what the Bible says without applying some pseudo-spiritual nonsense that passes for Christianity. Is it a challenge for you to be rational and depart from extra-biblical additions under the guise of "true religion"? God didn't make us to be stupid morons without the ability to think clearly and accept fantasy as reality.

For your information, I was healed twice in the hospital (on separate occasions) by the Lord Jesus Christ. I have first person knowledge of his extraordinary, supernatural power. You should stop the self-righteous, holier-than-thou accusations if you don't know what you're talking about. Can you spell "humility"?

 

[prodromos]

You say, "Apparently you read this passage and see "This is NOT my body" and "This cup [of wine] is NOT the new covenant in my blood." No, I read it as it was intended: a symbolic statement creating a ritual for us to follow until Jesus returns. Again, how can the flesh-and-blood Jesus say that (literally) bread is his body and wine is his blood while he, the real person of Jesus, is sitting right of front of his disciples

In the same way He multiplied the bread which fed the 5000.

 

[pescador]

In the same way He multiplied the bread which fed the 5000.

Not at all. He multiplied the (real) bread to feed hungry people, and did many other miracles, including raising people from the dead. That is a totally different scenario from his having dinner with his disciples and creating a ritual to remind them of him and the New Covenant when he would no longer be with him.

Suppose I was going away on a long journey and I wanted my closest friends to remember me until I returned. We might have a farewell dinner in which I asked them to remember me by drinking a toast regularly until I was with them again. I would ask them to do this "in remembrance of me" and to remember the agreement we had to be friends for as long as we were alive. The wine would be a symbol of our friendship.

In essence that is what Jesus did. He said, "Do this in remembrance of me." He is not making more bread out of a few loaves or increasing the number of fish for people to eat. That is an entirely different scene. He said that whenever they get together to eat a meal together, they should remember him by eating a "toast" of bread (no pun intended) and drink some wine.

It is bizarre to think that the flesh-and-blood Jesus would say that he really was bread and wine. He wasn't -- ever.

When he was crucified he had a fully human body and real human blood; he was not bread and wine.

 

[prodromos]

Not at all. He multiplied the (real) bread to feed hungry people, and did many other miracles, including raising people from the dead. That is a totally different scenario from his having dinner with his disciples and creating a ritual to remind them of him and the New Covenant when he would no longer be with him.

You asked, I answered. You disagree. That seems about par for the course here at CF.

 

[pescador]

You asked, I answered. You disagree. That seems about par for the course here at CF.

That's why it's a forum for discussion.

 

[Tangible]

You say, "Apparently you read this passage and see "This is NOT my body" and "This cup [of wine] is NOT the new covenant in my blood." No, I read it as it was intended: a symbolic statement creating a ritual for us to follow until Jesus returns. Again, how can the flesh-and-blood Jesus say that (literally) bread is his body and wine is his blood while he, the real person of Jesus, is sitting right of front of his disciples.

There is nothing in the context to suggest his words were symbolic other than what you are reading into them. Just stop for a minute and read the words that are actually there, not assigning them any other meaning than what the words actually say.

Instead of thinking "well, that can't be true so it must be symbolic," try thinking "this seems difficult to understand, so how might this passage be true?"

You say that my words of faith are "just rationalistic, naturalistic mumbo-jumbo -- an attempt to discredit the clear words of Christ as recorded in at least four places in scripture as being untrue because it's not rational." I can imagine a Pharisee saying such judgmental things, but it surprises me that someone who claims to be a Christian comes out with such insulting nonsense. I am not making "an attempt to discredit the clear words of Christ" because I believe what the Bible says instead of what you say.

Actually, you don't believe what the bible says. You believe your interpretation of what the bible says.

"Is it a challenge for you to set aside your natural skepticism, your rationalistic engagement with the world, your 21st century materialistic experience of reality, and simply accept that the words of Our Lord are true?" Of course not. I accept what the Bible says without applying some pseudo-spiritual nonsense that passes for Christianity.

No, you accept what the bible says after filtering it through rationalistic and materialistic world view. I believe what the bible actually says, in agreement with the unanimous witness of the ancient church, including St Paul.

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." 1 Corinthians 11:27

"For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." 1 Corinthians 11:29

You also didn't address my other question: Is it consistent with the revealed character of Jesus of Nazareth to challenge the willingness of believers to believe something that seems impossible?

Is it a challenge for you to be rational and depart from extra-biblical additions under the guise of "true religion"?

Which extra-biblical additions are you speaking about? The ones St Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians? Or the ones that Zwingli mentioned 1500 years later?

God didn't make us to be stupid morons without the ability to think clearly and accept fantasy as reality.

I'm pretty sure you're calling me a stupid moron who accepts fantasy as reality. But in general, I agree with this statement.

For your information, I was healed twice in the hospital (on separate occasions) by the Lord Jesus Christ. I have first person knowledge of his extraordinary, supernatural power.

That's joyful news! I wonder though, did Jesus Christ use the physical means of doctors and nurses, medicine and treatment, prayers and laying on of hands to heal you? Or did he personally appear in your room and directly act to heal you?

You should stop the self-righteous, holier-than-thou accusations if you don't know what you're talking about. Can you spell "humility"?

Humility? I think I've heard it spoken of before. As in humbly taking the words of Our Lord at face value and not trying to read into them symbolism and rationalism.

 

[Tangible]

Not at all. He multiplied the (real) bread to feed hungry people, and did many other miracles, including raising people from the dead. That is a totally different scenario from his having dinner with his disciples and creating a ritual to remind them of him and the New Covenant when he would no longer be with him.

Suppose I was going away on a long journey and I wanted my closest friends to remember me until I returned. We might have a farewell dinner in which I asked them to remember me by drinking a toast regularly until I was with them again. I would ask them to do this "in remembrance of me" and to remember the agreement we had to be friends for as long as we were alive. The wine would be a symbol of our friendship.

In essence that is what Jesus did. He said, "Do this in remembrance of me." He is not making more bread out of a few loaves or increasing the number of fish for people to eat. That is an entirely different scene. He said that whenever they get together to eat a meal together, they should remember him by eating a "toast" of bread (no pun intended) and drink some wine.

It is bizarre to think that the flesh-and-blood Jesus would say that he really was bread and wine. He wasn't -- ever.

When he was crucified he had a fully human body and real human blood; he was not bread and wine.

A rational point of view. Very rational indeed.

 

[pescador]

There is nothing in the context to suggest his words were symbolic other than what you are reading into them. Just stop for a minute and read the words that are actually there, not assigning them any other meaning than what the words actually say.

Instead of thinking "well, that can't be true so it must be symbolic," try thinking "this seems difficult to understand, so how might this passage be true?"

Actually, you don't believe what the bible says. You believe your interpretation of what the bible says.

No, you accept what the bible says after filtering it through rationalistic and materialistic world view. I believe what the bible actually says, in agreement with the unanimous witness of the ancient church, including St Paul.

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." 1 Corinthians 11:27

"For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." 1 Corinthians 11:29

You also didn't address my other question: Is it consistent with the revealed character of Jesus of Nazareth to challenge the willingness of believers to believe something that seems impossible?

Which extra-biblical additions are you speaking about? The ones St Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians? Or the ones that Zwingli mentioned 1500 years later?

I'm pretty sure you're calling me a stupid moron who accepts fantasy as reality. But in general, I agree with this statement.

That's joyful news! I wonder though, did Jesus Christ use the physical means of doctors and nurses, medicine and treatment, prayers and laying on of hands to heal you? Or did he personally appear in your room and directly act to heal you?

Humility? I think I've heard it spoken of before. As in humbly taking the words of Our Lord at face value and not trying to read into them symbolism and rationalism.

I am able to read and comprehend what the Bible says. Much of it requires interpretation instead of reading it literally. When Jesus said "The person who has seen me has seen the Father" does that mean that Jesus and the Father are identical twins? When he says "I and the Father are one" does that mean that the trinity doesn't exist?

You seem to think that because somewhere along the way you got the idea that you are the repository of all truth, and that you are infallible, and that those of us who disagree with you "accept what the bible says after filtering it through rationalistic and materialistic world view", you are deluding yourself and others.

Irrational thinking and self-delusion have no part in understanding that the Bible says exactly what it says. There was a reason that Jesus spoke in parables: so that although they see they may not see, and although they hear they may not understand. That's as true today as it was then. Spiritual ignorance and self-delusion are not admirable qualities.

 

[Tangible]

Spiritual ignorance and self-delusion are not admirable qualities.

At least on this we can agree.

But you still didn't address my previous question: Is it consistent with the revealed character of Jesus of Nazareth to challenge the willingness of believers to believe something that seems impossible?

 

[pescador]

At least on this we can agree.

But you still didn't address my previous question: Is it consistent with the revealed character of Jesus of Nazareth to challenge the willingness of believers to believe something that seems impossible?

Despite your fancy words, the truth does not rest on what people believe but on the inherent truth or lack of it. Believers in Christ can believe something that seems impossible, but that doesn't mean it's true. Is it consistent with the revealed character of Jesus of Nazareth to believe a lie?

Here are some words from the longer ending of Mark 16: "they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them". If these Gospel words are true, would you tell people it's okay to pick up venomous snakes and/or drink something laced with arsenic? There are believers who believe these words from the Bible and have died because of their belief.

Would you be interested in discussing the subject of the thread or do you prefer to go off on irrelevant tangents?

 

[Tangible]

Despite your fancy words,

Aw, shucks.

the truth does not rest on what people believe but on the inherent truth or lack of it.

Agreed. Truth is absolute and objective.

Believers in Christ can believe something that seems impossible, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Believers in Christ can also disbelieve something that is impossible, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Is it consistent with the revealed character of Jesus of Nazareth to believe a lie?

Of course not. Therefore when he said in plain words "This is my body" that is exactly what he meant for us to believe.

Here are some words from the longer ending of Mark 16: "they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them". If these Gospel words are true, would you tell people it's okay to pick up venomous snakes and/or drink something laced with arsenic? There are believers who believe these words from the Bible and have died because of their belief.

Dubious canonicity. Also, not given as a command, with no promise attached, and no scriptural example. Therefore, not instituted as a Sacrament.

Would you be interested in discussing the subject of the thread or do you prefer to go off on irrelevant tangents?

How is this discussion off topic?

 

[pescador]

Aw, shucks.

Agreed. Truth is absolute and objective.

Believers in Christ can also disbelieve something that is impossible, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Of course not. Therefore when he said in plain words "This is my body" that is exactly what he meant for us to believe.

Dubious canonicity. Also, not given as a command, with no promise attached, and no scriptural example. Therefore, not instituted as a Sacrament.

How is this discussion off topic?

In case you haven't noticed the subject of the thread is communion-eucharist-lords-table. You're discussing everything but...

 

[Episaw]

I always wonder why there is so much 'difficulty' about Communion. Well, I do understand the reasons in a way.

But it makes me awfully sad that what Jesus instigated has become so complicated. All the different rules and regs in different denominations....some are more strict than others.

As far as I can tell from what I've read ages ago, I wouldn't be able to have Communion in a Lutheran church (can't remember why now, but probably to do with my way of looking at it, and the way plenty of others look at it).

But just supposing Jesus were physically here now (and there were a reason for sharing the Lord's Supper/Eucharist), with a whole group of different Christians from diverse persuasions, do you think He would forbid Communion to half the people?
'Oh terribly sorry, your beliefs don't quite line up with what they should be, oh sorry, I will have to put the wafer in your mouth personally' etc etc.

As I say, I do understand where some of the difficulties come in and I'm not getting at different churches.

But it does seem dreadful to me that these differences can be or have sometimes in the past been a little divisive. If we all belong to Christ and supposed to be one in Him, some of it can seem to me against that union amongst ourselves, not to mention Christ.

The communion as we know it today did not exist in the New Testament church. Today's offering was a product of the roman catholic church and the reformation gave us the Protestant version.

The New Testament version is recorded in the Gospels in the records of the Passover meal. After the day of Pentecost, the New Testament church which was made up of Jews still celebrated the Passover once a year but the focus was Jesus, not the exodus from Egypt.

The record in Corinthians has no relevance outside of a shared meal. That passage was more about how they conducted themselves at that meal than it was about the Lord's supper.

And where it says in Acts they met together daily for the apostle's doctrine, fellowship, prayer, and breaking of bread, the term breaking of bread means a meal.

 

[Episaw]

I always wonder why there is so much 'difficulty' about Communion. Well, I do understand the reasons in a way.

But it makes me awfully sad that what Jesus instigated has become so complicated. All the different rules and regs in different denominations....some are more strict than others.

As far as I can tell from what I've read ages ago, I wouldn't be able to have Communion in a Lutheran church (can't remember why now, but probably to do with my way of looking at it, and the way plenty of others look at it).

But just supposing Jesus were physically here now (and there were a reason for sharing the Lord's Supper/Eucharist), with a whole group of different Christians from diverse persuasions, do you think He would forbid Communion to half the people?
'Oh terribly sorry, your beliefs don't quite line up with what they should be, oh sorry, I will have to put the wafer in your mouth personally' etc etc.

As I say, I do understand where some of the difficulties come in and I'm not getting at different churches.

But it does seem dreadful to me that these differences can be or have sometimes in the past been a little divisive. If we all belong to Christ and supposed to be one in Him, some of it can seem to me against that union amongst ourselves, not to mention Christ.

The communion as we know it today did not exist in the New Testament church. Today's offering was a product of the roman catholic church and the reformation gave us the Protestant version.

The New Testament version is recorded in the Gospels in the records of the Passover meal. After the day of Pentecost, the New Testament church which was made up of Jews still celebrated the Passover once a year but the focus was Jesus, not the exodus from Egypt.

The record in Corinthians has no relevance outside of a shared meal. That passage was more about how they conducted themselves at that meal than it was about the Lord's supper.

And where it says in Acts they met together daily for the apostle's doctrine, fellowship, prayer, and breaking of bread, the term breaking of bread means a meal.

 

[pescador]

The communion as we know it today did not exist in the New Testament church. Today's offering was a product of the roman catholic church and the reformation gave us the Protestant version.

The New Testament version is recorded in the Gospels in the records of the Passover meal. After the day of Pentecost, the New Testament church which was made up of Jews still celebrated the Passover once a year but the focus was Jesus, not the exodus from Egypt.

The record in Corinthians has no relevance outside of a shared meal. That passage was more about how they conducted themselves at that meal than it was about the Lord's supper.

And where it says in Acts they met together daily for the apostle's doctrine, fellowship, prayer, and breaking of bread, the term breaking of bread means a meal.

Aside from your tag line about abortion I agree with you 100%.

 

[Tangible]

The communion as we know it today did not exist in the New Testament church. Today's offering was a product of the roman catholic church and the reformation gave us the Protestant version.

The New Testament version is recorded in the Gospels in the records of the Passover meal. After the day of Pentecost, the New Testament church which was made up of Jews still celebrated the Passover once a year but the focus was Jesus, not the exodus from Egypt.

The record in Corinthians has no relevance outside of a shared meal. That passage was more about how they conducted themselves at that meal than it was about the Lord's supper.

And where it says in Acts they met together daily for the apostle's doctrine, fellowship, prayer, and breaking of bread, the term breaking of bread means a meal.

Aside from your tag line about abortion I disagree with you 100%.

Do you have any actual historical primary sources to support your claims, or are you just parroting things that you've heard or read on the internet somewhere?

 

[Episaw]

Aside from your tag line about abortion I disagree with you 100%.

Do you have any actual historical primary sources to support your claims, or are you just parroting things that you've heard or read on the internet somewhere?

Judging by your previous comments I did not expect you to agree with me.

I rarely take what anyone says as gospel. I am almost fanatical about studying anything I am interested in to get to the meat of a topic.

Over a two year period, I did a study of the New Testament Church. Apart from studying the scripture in the original Greek, I read over 60 books that had the word church in its title regardless of its source or denominational bent.

Many of the books were about Jewish life in Jesus time. These enabled me to get a handle of customs and background that would affect the coming into being of the Jerusalem church.

I put it all together for a Ph.D. thesis.

To give you all my sources would require a post that would be about three pages long.

 

[Episaw]

Aside from your tag line about abortion I agree with you 100%.

My tag line about abortion was a quote from two different abortionists who were interviewed on TV. Both said "every abortion kills a baby" so I claim no originality for that.

 

[pescador]

My tag line about abortion was a quote from two different abortionists who were interviewed on TV. Both said "every abortion kills a baby" so I claim no originality for that.

Many abortions save the life of a mother when the fetus has no chance of surviving outside of the womb.

BTW, your source was two different abortionists who were interviewed on TV? As someone who has a PhD you should know better. What verification do you have that these people were who they said they were?