communion

[Lotar]

No . . . I'm certainly not God. But, what's your point and what does it prove? Do you assert that just because we have Christ (God) breaking/blessing bread and saying "this is my body," He must be speaking literally? Christ never spoke figuratively, used metaphors or symbolism?

But if it is only symbolic, why would an unworthy person be eating and drinking judgement unto themselves?

 

[BBAS 64]

Here's a quick question:

I have in my hand a photo of myself. I hold it up for you guys to see and say, "This is me."

Now, is the picture of me-me? Or is it a representation of me?

Racer

I must say it is a mighty fine picture. I will take the picture it lasts longer .
But on this subject it may in fact be apicture of you in the it represents you and how you look "great I might add". If I could I would like to take this one step futher if I may.

I am right now in my study and it is said by people who know me well that this from is me. Now it this room me or is there a deep relaltionship between me and this room. I say this room is ME.

Is there any possibilty of this being a truth or not?


For His Glory Alone!
BBAS

 

[puriteen18]

Did Christ say that? I don't think so.

Is not all of the Bible the Word of God? If so, then it is also the Word of Christ.

In the verses you quote:



Paul is speaking to church members. How about we look past verse 16:

1Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1Cr 10:17 For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

Paul is saying that when we partake of "communion" we are communing with each other, fellowshipping with each other.

A couple more interesting notes on this passage. Paul doesn't say that the "cup of blessing" is Christ's blood, but that it is the "communion of the blood of Christ." Nor does He say the bread is Christ's "body." He says it's the "communion" of Christ's body. He then goes on to say that by coming together and communing, we become the "one bread, and one body" because we partake of that one BREAD.

I wasn't saying that the elements were the literal Body and Blood of Christ, but that in Communion we partake (commune) of the Body and Blood. For the faithful Christ is present in the sacrament with all benefits and graces. For the unworthy Christ is still there and they practically blaspheme Him by not concerning His Body and therefore, drink condemnation to themselves. Which seems to me to be pretty clearly taught in the Scripture.

It is a mystery that can never be fully comprehended, but that is the best way I can explain it.

I kind of agree with you (although probably not suffiently enough) in the fact that we commune also with each other, in that we all are made one in Christ and in His Holy Supper. The Church is, after all, the Body of Christ.

Another question for you:
Why would it be called the communion of the Body and Blood if we weren't communing with the Body and Blood?

 

[d0c markus]

Catholics are not denied the cup. However, one only has to receive under one species because we believe that both the Body and the Blood are fully present in both the Host and the Cup. Catholics most certainly can receive from the Cup.

By, the way, would you think it logical to ask Catholics what transubstantiation is, as opposed to those who don't believe in it?

thanks for your comments.. the former was addressed earlier.. and no to the latter. I wasnt looking for your input for the reason, any information i got about it (transubstantiation), i wanted to be able to refute it without debating in OBOB. thus breaking the rules. read carefully what i have said.

Howdy. I thought I would address your first question, since many people have answered the second. You ask:

What makes communion symbolic?

Thanks that was interesting. You have shown the bible to be very consistent in its use of figurative language.

 

[d0c markus]

But if it is only symbolic, why would an unworthy person be eating and drinking judgement unto themselves?

because... because..... he said so jeez!

Hmm.. Probably for the fact of what it symobolizes. Christ's death, and sacrifice and the end result of that. I think someone who takes it in an unworthy manner either intentionally or unintentionally belittles what christ did on the cross.

What do you think?


WOO HOO! man, jesus is blessing my socks off tonight... can you feel the spirit of the lord.... its almost surreal!!!!!!!!!

 

[JVAC]

because... because..... he said so jeez!

Hmm.. Probably for the fact of what it symobolizes. Christ's death, and sacrifice and the end result of that. I think someone who takes it in an unworthy manner either intentionally or unintentionally belittles what christ did on the cross.

What do you think?

Desecrating 'symbols' have never been a problem. People do it all the time, writing on money, leting flags touch the ground, burning crosses, etc. Symbols are nothing to 'heap condemnation' onto people. Yet blaspheming, and taking the name of God in vain, are such sins. When one says that there is no God therein, one blasphemes by calling what is God, not God. When one takes the body and blood without acknowledging it to be Christ, one takes the Lord and His Name in vain, one assigns it something less than what it is, and one holds it with little or no real value.

The sin of defiling this Holy Sacrament, is not just taking it sinning, for we all do that (we don't escape sin), infact we only heap condemnation on us when we take it giving it no real power for we THEN are taking it in vain.

 

[racer]

But if it is only symbolic, why would an unworthy person be eating and drinking judgement unto themselves?

Because of what communion symbolizes--Christ's body, blood and Crucifixion. Communion is a way of remembering Him by focusing directly on Him and meditating. We join together with fellow Christians and commune, remember Him and how He has touched our lives. Back to my analogy of a picture--if a loved one has passed away, we often take his picture and hold it in our hand, look at it and stroke it lovingly, maybe even kiss the photo. This does not constitute worship--we are just remembering the person, reflecting on how (s)he touched our lives.

I'm not saying that we don't worship Christ during Communion, because we do. But, we worship Him in Spirit, Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

From Blue Letter Bible commentary:

David Guzik Study Guide

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1074696812-1712.html

2. (20-22) Their bad conduct at the common meal

a. The early church combined the love-feast and the Lord's Supper; their selfish conduct at the former disgraced the observance of the latter

i. The first suggestion of the agape combined with the eucharist: Jesus with the disciples on the Emmaus Road​

b. We are accustomed to communion being celebrated in an atmosphere of dignity; but remember that the Corinthians were coming from a context of riotous meals given in honor of a pagan god

c. In that day, at common meals, it was expected that the "upper class" would receive better and more food than the "lower class"; this was being carried over into the church

i. Remember that society of that day was extremely class concious; it was respect of these class divisions which so grieved Paul​

d. Do we do things that shame those who have less than we do? Love is very sensitive!

3. (23-26) Paul outlines the true Lord's Supper

a. Paul didn't just make this up; it was either revealed to him personally or through the other apostles

b. Remember that Jesus was not only executed by a foriegn power; He was betrayed by His own

c. The phrase given thanks gives us the word eucharist

d. The focus remembering Jesus; the invitation is to a meal of fellowship, which commemorates His death and the creation of a New Covenant

i. Notice that Paul speaks of taking the bread, not the body; it has not been transubstantiated into the flesh of Christ

ii. The elements are best seen as symbols, but not empty symbols--they are the harbingers of the very presence of God

iii. A statue of Hercules is an empty symbol; but the Holy Spirit's coming as a dove is not​

e. The look is both backward and forward to the returning Christ, and our ultimate meal with Him

f. Proclaim is better as preach; when we take communion, we are preaching a sermon--to God Himself, to the Devil and all his allies, and to the world who watches

i. "As you break bread and bow your heart before Him, what sort of sermon are you preaching? Often we have broken bread together around the Lord's table, and then we have gone out to do just what those disciples did--we have denied Him." (Redpath)​

4. (27-34) Practical instructions

a. Treat the Lord's Supper with reverance, and do it in a spirit of self-examination; but not with the thought of excluding ourselves from the table, but of preparing us for partaking

i. And don't try to make yourself "worthy"; as you take the bread and cup, don't stare at the floor or struggle to achieve some sort of spiritual feeling. Simply open your heart to Christ and recognize His presence with you--in you!​

b. Irreverant treatment of the Lord's table invites God's corrective discipline--so discipline yourself first!

i. Paul is not speaking of eternal judgment, but corrective judgement; he does not include the article before judgment, so it is not the judgment

ii. But this chastening is not a judge condemnig a criminal; it is a father dealing with disobedient children

i. But even this judgment is not to damnation, but towards our salvation​

d. And, remember to display love and good manners at the love-feast!

 

[racer]

Desecrating 'symbols' have never been a problem.

I think it would be a problem for any Christian, especially since the "symbol" represents Christ.

 

[racer]

Racer

I must say it is a mighty fine picture. I will take the picture it lasts longer .
But on this subject it may in fact be apicture of you in the it represents you and how you look "great I might add". If I could I would like to take this one step futher if I may.

I am right now in my study and it is said by people who know me well that this from is me. Now it this room me or is there a deep relaltionship between me and this room. I say this room is ME.

Is there any possibilty of this being a truth or not?


For His Glory Alone!
BBAS

Bill,

Your study may possess your "spirit," but it is not the literal essence of you. I do believe in the Real Presence to the extent of Christ is always Spiritually present.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

 

[racer]

Puriteen,

Is not all of the Bible the Word of God? If so, then it is also the Word of Christ.

Yes, in the sense that the authors of Scripture are writing what they have been inspired to write. However, if you re-examine the verses you quoted, you will see that Paul is talking about the church members when he talks about communing. They are communing to remember Christ.

I wasn't saying that the elements were the literal Body and Blood of Christ, but that in Communion we partake (commune) of the Body and Blood. For the faithful Christ is present in the sacrament with all benefits and graces. For the unworthy Christ is still there and they practically blaspheme Him by not concerning His Body and therefore, drink condemnation to themselves. Which seems to me to be pretty clearly taught in the Scripture.

It is a mystery that can never be fully comprehended, but that is the best way I can explain it.

I don’t disagree with what you’ve said above—at least I think I don’t. The words “partake” and “commune” are not synonymous. I don’t understand why your explanation rules out symbolism. Christ specifically orders His Body (us) to commune and partake of the common meal “in His memory.”

I kind of agree with you (although probably not suffiently enough) in the fact that we commune also with each other, in that we all are made one in Christ and in His Holy Supper. The Church is, after all, the Body of Christ.

I’m still not sure why your understanding rules out symbolism.

Another question for you:
Why would it be called the communion of the Body and Blood if we weren't communing with the Body and Blood?

Well . . . because as Paul explained (and so have you) we (the church) are the Body and Blood of Christ. Soooo . . . when we (the Body and Blood of Christ) gather to remember Him, that would be His Body and Blood communing—thus, Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[racer]

When one takes the body and blood without acknowledging it to be Christ, one takes the Lord and His Name in vain, one assigns it something less than what it is, and one holds it with little or no real value.

To state this as fact, you must first prove, definitively, that Christ is indeed identifying the “bread and wine” as His literal “body and blood (as in flesh and blood.” Can you do that?

 

[BBAS 64]

Bill,

Your study may possess your "spirit," but it is not the literal essence of you. I do believe in the Real Presence to the extent of Christ is always Spiritually present.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Lisa,

How are you making a distiction between "spirit" and "essence", could the both be a literal in some way? I know some fine artist and when I see their works I see them. I would say in the literal way that "painting" is a true representation of their sprit and essence "as an artist". I hope this makes some sence.

I still think to come to the full understanding the passover sadder is the key!

When Jesus held up the Bread what did the Jews in the room see?
When Jesus held up the 3rd cup what did it mean to the Jews?

Not that I have the answers but many questions.

For His Glory Alone!

BBAS

 

[racer]

Bill,

I, also, said:

I do believe in the Real Presence to the extent of Christ is always Spiritually present.

You're making me think too hard, too early.

Here's what Webster says about "essence:"

Essence:1 a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being b : the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence c : the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is

Now, "spirit:"

Spirit 1 : an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms

I know what I mean, but I'm not sure how to say it. I guess, I could just have said, "Your "spirit" lingers in the room, but your literal life-giving "spirit" isn't there. So, your study (or my picture) may be very telling or revealing about you in the sense a person could tell a lot about your personality by being in your study during your absence, but that study tells nothing about your physical appearance. It may be a fair or accurate representation of you, but it's not you. Now, my picture may tell a lot about how I look physically, but not much (if anything) about my personality. It may be a fair and accurate representation of me, but it's not me.

I would say in the literal way that "painting" is a true representation of their sprit and essence "as an artist". I hope this makes some sence.

It does make sense. However, "a thing" being a true representation of "something" does not make the two one-and-the-same. My picture is a true representation of my physical appearance, but it's not me.

Looking at a picture of me during my absence would evoke stirring memories of me. Being in your study during your absence would evoke stirring memories of you--one could almost feel you in the room.

Here's another point. Jesus takes the bread, blesses it, breaks it and says, " . . . this is my body." He doesn't even say, " . . . this is me." Do you see the difference?

 

[BBAS 64]

Thanks, Lisa

Did not mean to disreguard what you had said. I am @ work kind of crazy here. Should pay more atten to what you said. Hope fully more time this afternoon after work @ home. Lisa coffee is a great mind wake-up early in the Morn.


Bill

 

[puriteen18]

Puriteen,

I don’t disagree with what you’ve said above—at least I think I don’t. The words “partake” and “commune” are not synonymous. I don’t understand why your explanation rules out symbolism.

If we are communing with His Body and Blood we are partaking of it.

I’m still not sure why your understanding rules out symbolism.

My understanding doesn't rule out symbolism, but it adds to it. The Sacrament of the LORD's Table is not just empty symbols. Christ is there, not in the carnal sense, but in a spiritual one, endowing the faithful with all the benefits of His Person.

Well . . . because as Paul explained (and so have you) we (the church) are the Body and Blood of Christ. Soooo . . . when we (the Body and Blood of Christ) gather to remember Him, that would be His Body and Blood communing—thus, Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ.

I don't think you see my understanding. We in Communion take of the Body and Blood (the Person of our LORD) and through Communion we are made one in Christ with our brethren. Therefore we are one body, His body, the Church.

The purpose of the Sacrament is to feed us of the Bread of Life, and to pour out for us drink of the Fount that quniches all thirst. Through common celebration of the Sacrament, we (the church) are united as one, in Christ. But the most blessed part of the Supper is not fellowship with each other, but the intimate fellowship with the Person of our Saviour through the eating of His Body and the drinking of His Blood.

 

[BBAS 64]

Bill,

I, also, said:



You're making me think too hard, too early.

Here's what Webster says about "essence:"

Essence:1 a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being b : the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence c : the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is

Now, "spirit:"

Spirit 1 : an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms

I know what I mean, but I'm not sure how to say it. I guess, I could just have said, "Your "spirit" lingers in the room, but your literal life-giving "spirit" isn't there. So, your study (or my picture) may be very telling or revealing about you in the sense a person could tell a lot about your personality by being in your study during your absence, but that study tells nothing about your physical appearance. It may be a fair or accurate representation of you, but it's not you. Now, my picture may tell a lot about how I look physically, but not much (if anything) about my personality. It may be a fair and accurate representation of me, but it's not me.



It does make sense. However, "a thing" being a true representation of "something" does not make the two one-and-the-same. My picture is a true representation of my physical appearance, but it's not me.

Looking at a picture of me during my absence would evoke stirring memories of me. Being in your study during your absence would evoke stirring memories of you--one could almost feel you in the room.

Here's another point. Jesus takes the bread, blesses it, breaks it and says, " . . . this is my body." He doesn't even say, " . . . this is me." Do you see the difference?

Lisa

I do not disagree with any thing you said here we are in agreement with the medifores you employ and your use of them to explain thiss issue IMO. We come at it from two sides me from the side of the Jewish Tradition "passover" and you from representive side. I see the out comes as the same but my understanding of my take on the question is lacking and needs futher historical information which I will contuine to seek.

I do see the differnce you discribe here as one of great implications as I seek to understand this issue. As to the bread I am still trying to understand what it represented at that time on that day. There is no question the "cup" was the CUP of redemption in the Sadder and his Blood was a directly related to our redemption in a real satisfing way.


Peace to u,
Bill

 

[racer]

If we are communing with His Body and Blood we are partaking of it.

Here's my understanding--just MHO . We "partake" of the "bread and wine" which symbolize the "body and blood" of Christ. We come together in remembrance of Christ as He instructed us to do, " . . . this do in remembrance of me." When we come together we are communing with each other (the body of Christ).

I pointed out something to Bill. Jesus takes the bread, blesses it, breaks and says, " . . . this is my body." Jesus doesn't say, " . . . this is me." There is a difference. Now, what is Jesus body? We are--His church. I just believe that if Jesus wanted to relay the message that the "bread and wine," after consecration, literally and physically transubstantiates into His "Real Presence"--completely Him, body, blood, soul and divinity, or even His "Real Presence"--as in His literal Spiritual Presence within the "bread and wine," He would have said, " . . . this is me." But, He didn't. He said "this is my body." (**There is a church father who kind of addresses this. I will try to find it.)

My understanding doesn't rule out symbolism, but it adds to it. The Sacrament of the LORD's Table is not just empty symbols.

And who says that a "symbol" must be empty or insignificant. Look back at the commentary I gave from Guzik:

d. The focus remembering Jesus; the invitation is to a meal of fellowship, which commemorates His death and the creation of a New Covenant

i. Notice that Paul speaks of taking the bread, not the body; it has not been transubstantiated into the flesh of Christ

ii. The elements are best seen as symbols, but not empty symbols--they are the harbingers of the very presence of God

iii. A statue of Hercules is an empty symbol; but the Holy Spirit's coming as a dove is not ​

Christ is there, not in the carnal sense, but in a spiritual one, endowing the faithful with all the benefits of His Person.

Christ is everywhere spirtually.

I don't think you see my understanding.

I'm sure I don't.

We in Communion take of the Body and Blood (the Person of our LORD) and through Communion we are made one in Christ with our brethren.

Now I'm confused. Above you say it's His spiritual presence. Now, you're saying the person (Body and Blood).

Therefore we are one body, His body, the Church.

Yes. His Church is His body.

The purpose of the Sacrament is to feed us of the Bread of Life, and to pour out for us drink of the Fount that quniches all thirst.

On this we tend to agree. We just don't agree on what exactly Christ meant when He said "eat and drink." I think it's a Spiritual enlightenment or nourishment that we gain from believing in Him, which is symbolized by eating and drinking the bread and wine in remembrance of Him.

Through common celebration of the Sacrament, we (the church) are united as one, in Christ. But the most blessed part of the Supper is not fellowship with each other, but the intimate fellowship with the Person of our Saviour through the eating of His Body and the drinking of His Blood.

I see the most blessed part as the adoration and worship given Him during the time of "remembrance."

 

[racer]

Puriteen,

Here are some quotes from Augustine:

He gets the point across a little better than I:

A. We have heard the True Master, the Divine Redeemer, the human Saviour, commending us to our Ransom, His Blood. For He spake to us of His Body and Blood; He called his Body Meat, His Blood Drink . . . When therefore commending such Meat and such Drink He said, ‘Except ye shall eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, ye shall have no life in you;’ . . . His disciples were offended . . . What then did He answer? ‘Doth this offend you? . . . Do ye imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?’ Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed . . . That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man’s Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life.’ (Ibid., vol. VI, St. Augustin, Homilies on the Gospels, Sermon 81.1, p. 501.)

B. Who is the Bread of the kingdom of God, but He who saith, ‘I am the living Bread which came down from heaven’? Do not get they mouth ready, but thine heart. On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and we are nourished in heart. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense. (Ibid., vol. VI, Sermon 62.5, p. 448.)

C. This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose doest thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Ibid., vl. VII, Tractate 25.12, p. 164)

 

[racer]

Bill,

Maybe this will help you. I'm not sure.

From William Websters, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History:

p. 131 & 132

"This becomes yet clearer form the identification of the Lord's Supper with the Passover memorial of the Old Testament. The lord's Supper was first celebrated at the time of Jewish Passover and Jesus specifically identifies it as an equivalent when he says: 'I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer' (Luke 22:15). What exactly was the Passover? It was an annual feast established by God in which the Jews would remember the night in which the angel of death 'passed over' those families which had applied the blood of the lamb to their door-posts (Exod. 12:1-13). 'Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; thoughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance' (Exod. 12:14). This was a 'memorial' to a specific act of God in redeeming his people from bondage and death. The 'memorial' served to bring to remembrance an important event. It did not repeat the event but kept it vivid in the memory through a physical representation.

Just as God instituted a memorial of remembrance of redemption in the Old Testament, he has done the same in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 5:7 states, 'For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.' His death is an accomplished fact. Now we are called, not to a sacrifice, but to a feast: 'Let us therefore celebrate the feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth' (1 Cor. 5:8)/ When Christ states that the bread is to be eaten and the wine drunk in remembrance of him, he is employing the same language as that of the Old Testament memorial in reference to the Passover. The Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice, it is the commemoration of a sacrifice."

I don't know if that addresses your questions in any way. But, I just thought it might help.

 

[puriteen18]

And who says that a "symbol" must be empty or insignificant. Look back at the commentary I gave from Guzik:

d. The focus remembering Jesus; the invitation is to a meal of fellowship, which commemorates His death and the creation of a New Covenant

i. Notice that Paul speaks of taking the bread, not the body; it has not been transubstantiated into the flesh of Christ


ii. The elements are best seen as symbols, but not empty symbols--they are the harbingers of the very presence of God

iii. A statue of Hercules is an empty symbol; but the Holy Spirit's coming as a dove is not ​

​

By empty I meant that it is just like eatin gany other bread, which it is not. Jesus, our LORD, is there.

Christ is everywhere spirtually.

Yes, but His Body and Blood, His sacrifice is somehow present spritually in the Sacrament. The elements do not become the Body and Blood (trans). Nor are the literally present with the elements (cons). But, in some great mystery, the faithful do partake of the Person of Christ, who is spiritually present there.

I'm sure I don't.

It's quite okay. The Calvinist view is confusing. It took me a while to understand this much and I still probably don't explainit the best way.

Now I'm confused. Above you say it's His spiritual presence. Now, you're saying the person (Body and Blood).

The fullnes of His Person is sprirtually present in the faithful partaking of the elements.

On this we tend to agree. We just don't agree on what exactly Christ meant when He said "eat and drink." I think it's a Spiritual enlightenment or nourishment that we gain from believing in Him, which is symbolized by eating and drinking the bread and wine in remembrance of Him.

We gain all of His benefits and graces if we partake as faithful converted children of God.

The Sacraments are are signs and seals of the Covenant. In the Sacraments there are 1. visible objects and actions and 2.inward realities and spiritual benefits.