Lords supper is symbolic

DrBubbaLove · Apr 16, 2017

EmethAlethia said:
By the way, there were many heresies present even when the word of God was being written. To quote opinions "after" the scripture was written could be merely to quote additional heresies. If there is no standard there is no way to judge anything before or after. If there is a standard, the Word of God is it. Your choice.

Yep, Christians are humans, so there be heresies from the very 1st century. The interesting thing about heresies and false teachings of the 1st century, is that the Apostles ALWAYS spoke against it, as did the men they personally schooled.

My choice is to believe that God would not allow people to walk away in disgust simply because they supposedly misunderstood Him. I choose to believe they walked away because they understood and were disgusted by what they were told they needed to eat for their eternal benefit. My choice is believe God when He said He would protect the teachings He gave the Apostles. My choice is believing that the NT depicts Apostles already protecting those teachings from people saying anything different. My choice is to believe they did what the NT says they were doing, picking good and faithful men to remember what those men heard and from whom (an Apostle) they heard it.
Then we have 1st century men, one mentioned already schooled by and friend of the Apostle John (favorites of Saint Peter also), teaching about the Eucharist in the same sort of language Jesus used in the Bread of Life discourse. So I choose to believe those men were faithful to the men who personally taught them those things. I choose to believe that those teachers, the Apostles, would have corrected the teaching rigorously if it was false. So I choose to believe the teaching the RCC would pick up and continue to protect nearly 400 years later are as valid as they were in the 1st century and have remained consistent (though indeed exaggerated at times by some) to even today. That is indeed what I choose to believe.

Panevino · Apr 16, 2017

Episaw said:
I have consulted over 40 authors, some of whom were catholic.

And it is not my point of view. It is the view of scripture, written in the original Greek.

And no, what we need here are people who have the gift of teaching; are not rusted onto a particular denominational view; know their original Greek; are able to move beyond just their opinion; and/or are not just parroting what they have been told.

Is Hans Kung the catholic author?

Episaw · Apr 16, 2017

Panevino said:
Is Hans Kung the catholic author?

Yes

wilts43 · Apr 16, 2017

EmethAlethia said:
Your argument is not with me but with Christ Himself. " 25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine" He still calls it wine. You call it blood. Who should we trust. But then, if the word of God is untrustworthy, so are the statements about Peter. Either the word is authoritative or it isn't. We have to pick one, don't we. What's your pick?

Expanding the passage you quote......
"This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until the day when I drink it anew with you in My Father’s” kingdom. 30And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives."

Four cups must be drunk at the Passover Meal. Jesus has poured the third (Cup of Blessing) and they abruptly leave the Passover meal (unfinished!) without drinking the fourth (Cup of Consumation). He goes to the Garden & prays that "this cup may pass from my lips....".

....And then.....As he dies Christ says "I thirst" .....so (John 19:29)
"A jar of sour wine was sitting there. So they soaked a sponge in the wine, put it on a stalk of hyssop, and lifted it to His mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished.” (Consumated)
THE PASSOVER WAS FINISHED WITH THIS FOURTH CUP (as he passed into His kingdom)
IT WAS SOUR FRUIT-OF-THE-VINE (And It was NOT consecrated by Him)
This was The Fourth Cup-of -Consumation!
This finished the truncated passover ....and became the Passover of The New Kingdom
(The Passover blood had to be on a Hyssop stalk as well)

wilts43 · Apr 16, 2017

jimmyjimmy said:
It can't be literal, so it's symbolic.

Why can't it be literal?
All things are possible with God!
In John 6 Jesus has lots of chances to backtrack/softpeddle , but each time he hardens his insistance on speaking literally.
(No passage in scripture that is more insistently literal)

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”.....................
.........60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”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.”

You cannot understand this with "the flesh". Your fleshly, commonsensical mind rejects it,....... just like most of his listeners did.
Only the Spirit can give belief that this is possible.

The whole chapter says this over & over. The five thousand are fed ....impossibly.
Jesus walks on the water.......impossibly.

And "when you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before...."
The bread that he will rain down (ie Himself) will be the new, REAL Manna, of The New Covenant.
---------------------------------

It is ironic that Protestants, who claim sola scriptura, do so much violence to it.
If you can say "It can't be literal, so it's symbolic" of this...
Say it more so of The Resurrection!
And indeed many have. But not The Catholic (or Orthodox, or Lutheran) Churches

jimmyjimmy · Apr 16, 2017

DrBubbaLove said:
No, far be from me to have to ask any Christian to imagine Jesus doing a miracle. Oh wait.

So since it does not say Jesus performed a miracle, did they leave out the part of the story where they told the boy to run back to town and get wagon loads of more bread and fish for Jesus to break up into pieces to sustain the faithful?
Gee maybe it is about sustaining Christian faith by having God's Grace applied in a very special way. A way that has nothing to do with needing to eat human flesh and drink human blood for nutritional support. It is a spiritual food for an application of Supernatural Grace to help sustain our faith.
From the 6th chapter of the Gospel of Love (shortened and my bolding added):

Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

"Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.""
Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world."

They said to him, "Lord, give us this bread always."
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?"
Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

You haven't provided any argument. You've simply inserted smoke, mist, and mysticism where it is convenient for you do so and not deal with the texts.

jimmyjimmy · Apr 16, 2017

wilts43 said:
Why can't it be literal?
All things are possible with God!
In John 6 Jesus has lots of chances to backtrack/softpeddle , but each time he hardens his insistance on speaking literally.
(No passage in scripture that is more insistently literal)

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”.....................
.........60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”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.”

You cannot understand this with "the flesh". Your fleshly, commonsensical mind rejects it,....... just like most of his listeners did.
Only the Spirit can give belief that this is possible.

The whole chapter says this over & over. The five thousand are fed ....impossibly.
Jesus walks on the water.......impossibly.

And "when you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before...."
The bread that he will rain down (ie Himself) will be the new, REAL Manna, of The New Covenant.
---------------------------------

It is ironic that Protestants, who claim sola scriptura, do so much violence to it.
If you can say "It can't be literal, so it's symbolic" of this...
Say it more so of The Resurrection!
And indeed many have. But not The Catholic (or Orthodox, or Lutheran) Churches

It can't be literal because cannibalism is strictly forbidden, and, as I said, he gave them bread. It only takes one eye, or the use of brail to see that. He gave them bread and wine, not His arm and leg. It was not literally His flesh because of the prohibition on such things and He gave them B R E A D.

JoeP222w · Apr 16, 2017

Albion said:
Wait a moment. Were we talking about the Supper being...a sacrifice? I thought the controversy was over a representational view of the sacrament vs. believing that Christ, in some sense, gives his very self to his followers.

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

wilts43 · Apr 16, 2017

jimmyjimmy said:
It can't be literal because cannibalism is strictly forbidden, and, as I said, he gave them bread. It only takes one eye, or the use of brail to see that. He gave them bread and wine, not His arm and leg. It was not literally His flesh because of the prohibition on such things and He gave them B R E A D.

Jewish exception to Cannibalism (from Jewish source)
"In the case of cannibalism, there have been some very unusual circumstances, where a person dies, and is able through the body to sustain other people alive."

Do you get it?
Read John 6 in this light.
----------------------------------
Some things (like blood) were taboo in the Old Covenant...Why?.... because they were so sacred (The very LIFE was in the blood, & only a priest could pour it on the alter). They are signs of what will be made really manifest in the New Covenant.
Now, In the New covenant, the most sacred blood of all (Christ's) is pour out by His priests, on the altar, for His people ....because His LIFE is in it!!!

How can you not be amazed & inspired by this?

-------------

Your missing the rich layers of meaning in scripture that Catholicism/Orthodoxy sees.
Your insisting on selectively upholding certain OT Laws, to protect the reductionist interpretation of your tradition.

jimmyjimmy · Apr 16, 2017

wilts43 said:
Jewish exception to Cannibalism (from Jewish source)
"In the case of cannibalism, there have been some very unusual circumstances, where a person dies, and is able through the body to sustain other people alive."

Do you get it?
Read John 6 in this light.
----------------------------------
Some things (like blood) were taboo in the Old Covenant...Why?.... because they were so sacred (The very LIFE was in the blood, & only a priest could pour it on the alter). They are signs of what will be made really manifest in the New Covenant.
Now, In the New covenant, the most sacred blood of all (Christ's) is pour out by His priests, on the altar, for His people ....because His LIFE is in it!!!

How can you not be amazed & inspired by this?

-------------

Your missing the rich layers of meaning in scripture that Catholicism/Orthodoxy sees.
Your insisting on selectively upholding certain OT Laws, to protect the reductionist interpretation of your tradition.

You quote me extra-biblical texts from Jewish scholars to prove your point? Really?

John 6 comes before John 13. In other words, things said in John 6 become more clear in John 13.

Also, read John in light of God's sovereignty in election, because that's what repulsed the people. God chooses His elect. It's not man's will, but God's.

Albion · Apr 16, 2017

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

Fine, but that wasn't what we had been discussing on this thread.

wilts43 · Apr 16, 2017

I can't use this multi quote & I can't delete. I'll try again

wilts43 · Apr 16, 2017

wilts43 · Apr 16, 2017

jimmyjimmy said:
You quote me extra-biblical texts from Jewish scholars to prove your point? Really?

Yup!

jimmyjimmy said:
John 6 comes before John 13. In other words, things said in John 6 become more clear in John 13.

Your point???

jimmyjimmy said:
Also, read John in light of God's sovereignty in election, because that's what repulsed the people. God chooses His elect. It's not man's will, but God's.

Precisely! Christ says that the ability to accept these "hard saying" is from the Father. The (mind of the) flesh alone can't do it.

Nick714 · Apr 16, 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?

i believe it is symbolic of his death and Resurrection because we become the body of christ through what he did on the cross. so we are taking part in his body. and using the breaking of bread and wine to continue to remember what he did for us on the cross. because it is the foundation for salvation.

and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:23

wilts43 · Apr 16, 2017

Nick714 said:
i believe it is symbolic of his death and Resurrection because we become the body of christ through what he did on the cross. so we are taking part in his body. and using the breaking of bread and wine to continue to remember what he did for us on the cross.

So why bread? Why wine?
If "remembering" Christ's death is all it is. We could eg.....light a candle, or send a card.

The Bread & Wine & Lamb all have deep meanings.
They foreshadow in the OT overwhelming fulfilment in the NT. (Typology)
Also you had to actually eat the Passover lamb to be saved.
And "remembering" meant you were actually there for the Jews.

Why do Protestant interpretations miss so much Typology?
It is the key form of prophecy for the Messiah.

The bread is a Manna Type (Christ calls it "epiousiou"=supernatural bread in the Our Father)
But the OT type is always dwarfed by its fulfilment in the NT
But your belief makes the new manna less than the old! (which was supernatural)
The New Manna has to be far greater than the old.
And doesn't Jesus go to great lengths (in John 6) to insist just exactly how it is far greater (For those who can hear it)?

And Jesus is born in "Bethlehem" (= "House of Bread")
He is laid in a Manger (animal feeder)
He is "The Bread of The Presence" (that the Temple-priests had to keep as a permanent offering before God. (Like the Son's sacrifice before The Father). And in a Catholic Church Tabernacle today. And on feasts they would lift it up on its table showing the people saying "Behold God's Love for you" (Now His Only Son lifted up)

He turns water into wine.
He feeds five thousand with a few loaves
All miracles/signs foreshadowing The Catholic/Christian Eucharistic.
Jesus Himself, His glorified risen body, blood, soul & divinity....is the New Manna.
And there are Eucharistic miracles today.....some subjected to scientific testing with mind-blowing results. (Google or YouTube it)
You are what you eat. So how do you become The Body of Christ?
This was the belief of ALL Christians until Zwingli after 1500 years of Catholic & Orthodox belief.
Only Protestants (not Lutherans and most Anglicans) have rejected this sacred belief and this essential spiritual nourishment and incredible gift of God.
If you are a Christian....this is not just a matter of opinion......it is about possibly turning away from God's greatest gift to His Church.

JoeP222w · Apr 16, 2017

Albion said:
Fine, but that wasn't what we had been discussing on this thread.

Well I disagree. I think it is exactly what the discussion was about.

Albion · Apr 16, 2017

Nick714 said:
i believe it is symbolic of his death and Resurrection because we become the body of christ through what he did on the cross. so we are taking part in his body. and using the breaking of bread and wine to continue to remember what he did for us on the cross. because it is the foundation for salvation.

and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:23

I think that just about ALL Christians see it as symbolic of his death & as a remembrance. So that doesn't really settle anything.

DrBubbaLove · Apr 16, 2017

jimmyjimmy said:
You haven't provided any argument. You've simply inserted smoke, mist, and mysticism where it is convenient for you do so and not deal with the texts.

Calling my reply a non-argument is indeed an attempt to insert smoke, mist and mirrors to redirect the focus off what I said.
My reply was a total refutation of someone suggesting basically that I need to apologize to Jesus and Apostles for not "listening" to their message or not deal with the "texts" offered in the NT. In my view the person not wanting to deal with the "texts" would be the one claiming everything in the text is unnecessary but the knowledge there is a faith that Jesus saves us. Sort of turns "help thou my unbelief" into "I believe, no need for your help knowing anything more".

DrBubbaLove · Apr 16, 2017

jimmyjimmy said:
It can't be literal because cannibalism is strictly forbidden, and, as I said, he gave them bread. It only takes one eye, or the use of brail to see that. He gave them bread and wine, not His arm and leg. It was not literally His flesh because of the prohibition on such things and He gave them B R E A D.

It doesn't require much of anything to literally see Him saying you must "eats my flesh and drinks my blood" or how that would be a "hard saying". That it is cannibalism is refuted by what He says consuming His Flesh and His Blood can do for us, which has nothing to do with physical nourishment. If He did not mean it very literally then what would be "hard" about it?
Furthermore if one believes this all metaphor/symbolism, then God left people to walk away from Him and the Apostles confused apparently without explaining it was not hard at all. He should of said, "wait come back you misunderstood me" or explained that to the obviously troubled Apostles on having just heard what He said. Why would God allow people, especially His Apostles, to be left confused and in the dark unless He really did mean they must literally "eat me" much like Adam originally had to eat something?

Lords supper is symbolic

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Newbie

Always learning

Newbie

Newbie

Pardoned Rebel

Pardoned Rebel

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Pardoned Rebel

Facilitator

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Active Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency