Lords supper is symbolic

[dqhall]

In John 4:34 (WEB) Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work."

If Jesus' food was to do the work the Lord had assigned him, then he may have offered this food to those who followed him along with the bread and wine at the table.

In John 15:5 Jesus compared himself to a leading trunk of the vine: "I am the vine. You are the branches. He who remains in me, and I in him, the same bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." This does not mean we should think of Jesus as having bark instead of skin, nor that individual believers should be sprouting leaves and clusters of grapes from their limbs, but this like the Lord's supper must be a metaphor.

No one has tested the Catholic eucharist in a lab and discovered the genetic profile or DNA sequencing of Christ the Messiah.

 

[Ken Rank]

so when he says my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink - is this the language of symbolism? true food kind of sounds like he means it is really food doesn't it? If he meant symbolic food why would he say true food?

It is Hebraic idiomatic speech that we don't use today and don't recognize it as such. Since his body was sitting at the table when he held up the bread, and since his blood had not been spilled when he held up the cup... then I simply take it as a memorial, in remembrance of the greatest act in human history. But I don't make him relive the event every week.

 

[Ken Rank]

Ken, you stated: "It could be that you are correct, it could be that I am correct... but it also could be that we are both wrong". Ken, Ok let's break it down:

Would Christ condemn those For Taking Him Literally? No! Here is why, because the Apostles who believed in Christ that we must Eat and Drink His Body and Blood stood with Him. Because we have faith in Him who has the Words of everlasting Life.

Would Christ condemn you for taking Him symbolically? Yes, and here is why, because those Apostles who left, Christ's side, Believed Jesus was speaking Literally! That We Must Eat and Drink His Body and Blood. THEREFORE, these Apostles who left Christ side, will be Your judges. Because You have left with them.

Ken, we can not be both wrong, or both correct, thinking so is being lukewarm.

I didn't condemn anyone... I simply have reached a different conclusion than you did. Sin is breaking the commandments (1 John 3:4) and if one of the commandments is not to drink blood... and then he tells you to drink blood, he is attempting to get you to break a commandment. That is over and above the fact that when he held up the bread and cup his body hadn't been broken and not a drop of blood had been spilled. It is a memorial... to me.... if you take it literally, fine. In the end... one of is is right or both are wrong. That isn't being lukewarm... that is avoiding being dogmatic.

 

[Tangible]

No one has tested the Catholic eucharist in a lab and discovered the genetic profile or DNA sequencing of Christ the Messiah.

That is a total mischaracterization of the doctrine of the Real Presence.

 

[Ken Rank]

Hi Ken, you would be Catholic, if it were not for the Protestant reformation.

And you would be Jewish if a Rabbi named Akiva didn't name bar Kosiba by a messianic title... because before then, Christianity was very much considered a sect of Judaism.

I pray for you to come to believe.

Believe what? Are you questioning my faith? Isn't that against the rules? I believe "PanDeVida" and I don't hide behind a phony screen name when I do. I just don't believe that the God of Israel has changed and now thinks drinking blood is ok. God does not change... that is where I start when I read anything. Have a great day... please don't waste our time replying because I don't have an issue with how you practice on this, but I have NO desire AT ALL to change. He that seeks will find... I am not seeking.

 

[Jack Isaacks]

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?

chaz, it's not just the Catholic church.

ALL the Pre-Reformation churches believe this. Even Luther himself said, "If all the papists were combined into one man, that man could not believe the Real Presence more than I do."

However, fro mthe Orthodox standpoint, "symbol" is the wrong word to use. "Symbolos/symbolon" in Greek means a bringing together of two realities; in the case of the Eucharist, the bread and wine and the Body and Blood of Christ.

Most Protestants believe the Eucharist is merely emblematic, not symbolic. The bread and wine remain bread and wine with no connection to the objective Body and Blood of Christ, except in the believer's mind and memory.

And even "anamnesis" in Greek means to make actually present that which is being commemorated.

A blessed Holy Week!

 

[chaz491]

Ken, you stated: "It could be that you are correct, it could be that I am correct... but it also could be that we are both wrong". Ken, Ok let's break it down:

Would Christ condemn those For Taking Him Literally? No! Here is why, because the Apostles who believed in Christ that we must Eat and Drink His Body and Blood stood with Him. Because we have faith in Him who has the Words of everlasting Life.

Would Christ condemn you for taking Him symbolically? Yes, and here is why, because those Apostles who left, Christ's side, Believed Jesus was speaking Literally! That We Must Eat and Drink His Body and Blood. THEREFORE, these Apostles who left Christ side, will be Your judges. Because You have left with them.

Ken, we can not be both wrong, or both correct, thinking so is being lukewarm.

But this is the problem. Christ said that if you didn't eat his flesh and drink his blood, you had no life in you..

It is just not the case that the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. Think about it. If I conclude from reading the Bible and interpreting it for myself that baptism doesn't mean anything then I have developed my own theory on how the economy of salvation works. What if I am wrong? This is the way things are for Protestants. This is why there are hundreds of different groups - each with their own theory on how it is supposed to work. They can't all be right now can they? One guy says baptism is just a trivial ceremony and another guy says you cant go to heaven without it. One guy says drinking alcohol is a serious sin, and another says it is fine. It must be painful, but they think everyone out there has the same dilemma.

 

[Tangible]

This is the way things are for Protestants. This is why there are hundreds of different groups - each with their own theory on how it is supposed to work. They can't all be right now can they? One guy says baptism is just a trivial ceremony and another guy says you cant go to heaven without it. One guy says drinking alcohol is a serious sin, and another says it is fine. It must be painful, but they think everyone out there has the same dilemma.

To be fair, there is quite a wide range of belief and practice among Roman Catholics too. So much so, in fact, that there has to be three different forums to accommodate them on CF. The RCC is not the homogeneous monolith it sometimes pretends to be.

 

[Panevino]

Perhaps among Protestants... but the early church, which in the first century was predominately Jewish, would have viewed drinking blood and eating the flesh of another as being pagan to the core and against God's commandments. Even if you are anomian (against/without law) you still accept the Acts 15 letter which says to refrain from blood. How can God inspire a people to repeat an OT command to refrain from blood AFTER messiah said to drink his blood? God is not the author of confusion.

Because the life is in the blood and with Jesus as the Pascal lamb there is an obvious change / realization

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

At mass the blood of the new covenant is given and not merely sprinkled on the people as the OT. As this OT congregation went out into the community with the blood so do the NT people.
It's extraordinary.

Exodus 24:7-8
And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.

John 6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

 

[Panevino]

Disciples of Jesus didn’t eat the physical body of Jesus. That is why I think it is symbolical, or means something else than his physical body. That something else I think is his words and his spirit that is transmitted through his words.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
John 6:63

Truly, truly I tell you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death at all.”
John. 8:51

Consider the context of the previous verses (the flesh / spirit in v63 is the dichotomy of approaches to listening to Him)
John 6:60-62
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

The flesh in John 6:63 is not a reference to the efficacy of Jesus flesh (if you think about it that's absurd) the verse talks about the lenses with which we can listen to Him (through a mind of the flesh/worldly or through the spirit)

For example
Romans 8:13

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

 

[1stcenturylady]

It seems to me everyone is missing the point of the Lord's Supper/Eucharist. We all know what the cup and unleavened bread represent, whether you believe it is the actual body and blood (even though they can't deny it tastes like bread and wine), or symbolic of Christ's crucified body and blood, though some even take it down to mere grape juice with leavened bread which seems sacrilegious, we remember His death until He comes again. Jesus died to bring in a New Covenant, as the Old Covenant could not take away sin. The CUP, representing Christ's blood, is called the Cup of the New Covenant. That is because it is the new sign of the New Covenant. Do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me. Just as the Sabbath was the sign (Exodus 31:13) of the Old Covenant, that they were to REMEMBER. Just as the substance of the Sabbath was Jesus (Colossians 2:17), so our new sign represents the blood of Jesus.

What is the most important thing for us to do with regards to the Lord's Supper/Eucharist, is to not take it unworthily. Do not take it with unrepented sin on your conscience. Do not take it if you have sinned willfully. That is trampling on His blood and the Spirit of Grace. Willful sin in the Old Testament was dealt with by stoning or put away out of the camp. But there was a sacrifice that in some ways is reminiscent of the Lord's Supper/Eucharist for UNINTENTIONAL sin. Numbers 15:24 "...with its grain offering and its drink offering,..." Read Numbers 15:22-36 for the difference between unintentional sin and willful/presumptuous sin. This is the same sins we commit while we are walking in the Spirit. Sins we are not even aware of, and His blood automatically cleanses us. 1 John 1:7.

It is not whether you believe the bread and wine are turned into actual body and blood or just symbols, or whether you baptize by sprinkling or full immersion, but why we are doing these commands in our New Covenant. We are to keep the commands of Jesus. If you love Me, keep My Commandments.

 

[Ron Gurley]

OP : "Lord's Supper" is "symbolic"?

aka

Q: Is the communion ritual:

A. "transubstantiation"? ...OR..."consubstantiation" ...based on "tradition" and "magisterium"?

OR

B. a "new" Ordinance given by Jesus at His last Passover meal supported by the Bible?

ANSWER: B!..."commanded by Christ Jesus himself"

This one of the few clear Jesus the God-Man's commands / ordinances.

Similar to His new command to believers:
John 15 (NASB)
12 “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.

What about Him are we remembering?
...“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!...The New Covenant!...A NEW ORDER!

Luke 22:19c....do this in remembrance of Me.”

1 Corinthians 11:24-25
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.”
In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father will send in My name,
He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

Study the "Passover" (seder) ritual that Jesus and his followers actually performed during that last evening celebration.

Each part was highly symbolic.
Unleavened Bread = sinless manna from heaven.
Wine = life in the special cup reserved for Messiah.
Hyssop herbs = bitter sins of Israel.
Pascal lamb = sacrifice to cover sin.
Dancing and singing = praise to God for deliverance of Moses / people
Salt Water = the tears of scattered Israel

Matthew 26:28
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:24
And He said to them,
“This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:20
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying,
“This cup which is poured out for you is the NEW covenant in My blood.

Hebrews 12:24
and to Jesus,
the mediator of a new covenant,
and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Hebrews 13:20
Now the God of peace,
who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep
through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord,

I believe that the words of John 6 ( and other "body" / "blood" passages) are metaphorical ONLY! Vivid allegories!

John 6: 34-40; 47-51, 58...Jesus is the Bread of Life
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
Jesus said to them,
“I am the bread of life;
he who comes to Me will not hunger, and
he who believes in Me will never thirst....
This is the will of Him who sent Me,
that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that
everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
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 (me) is the bread which comes down out of heaven, (DEITY!)
so that one may eat of it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; (DEITY!)
if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;
and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” (sacrifice on the Cross)
This is the bread which came down out of heaven;
not as the fathers ate and died;
he who eats this bread will live forever.”

 

[Ken Rank]

Because the life is in the blood and with Jesus as the Pascal lamb there is an obvious change / realization

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

At mass the blood of the new covenant is given and not merely sprinkled on the people as the OT. As this OT congregation went out into the community with the blood so do the NT people.
It's extraordinary.

Exodus 24:7-8
And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.

John 6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

A b'rit (which we would translate as "covenant" but unlike a covenant, requires blood) is not consumed... the bible OVER and OVER and OVER again, says not to ingest blood. Sprinkling on the people but not ingested.

If this is SO important to you all that you insist on trying to correct my error... then aside from Yeshua's words, show me even one place in Scripture where a person of God drinks blood. Just one place will do, thanks.

 

[Panevino]

.......
What about Him are we remembering?
...“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!...The New Covenant!...A NEW ORDER!

yes the pascal lamb the high priest and victim. The blood of which has life and atones

Luke 22:19c....do this in remembrance of Me.”

1 Corinthians 11:24-25
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.”
In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father will send in My name,
He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

Study the "Passover" (seder) ritual that Jesus and his followers actually performed during that last evening celebration.

Each part was highly symbolic.
Unleavened Bread = sinless manna from heaven.
Wine = life in the special cup reserved for Messiah.
Hyssop herbs = bitter sins of Israel.
Pascal lamb = sacrifice to cover sin.
Dancing and singing = praise to God for deliverance of Moses / people
Salt Water = the tears of scattered Israel

The Passover night was revisited in the Passover meal moving forward not simply as a memorial but as a participation in the original event.
Exodus 12:24-28

And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.
And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the Lord will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.
And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?
That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
And the children of Israel went away, and did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.

Jesus is our pascal lamb

......
I believe that the words of John 6 ( and other "body" / "blood" passages) are metaphorical ONLY! Vivid allegories!

John 6: 34-40; 47-51, 58...Jesus is the Bread of Life
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
Jesus said to them,
“I am the bread of life;
he who comes to Me will not hunger, and
he who believes in Me will never thirst....
This is the will of Him who sent Me,
that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that
everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
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 (me) is the bread which comes down out of heaven, (DEITY!)
so that one may eat of it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; (DEITY!)
if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;
and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” (sacrifice on the Cross)
This is the bread which came down out of heaven;
not as the fathers ate and died;
he who eats this bread will live forever.”

Catholics see this and don't deny the view of coming/believing thirst/hunger while also seeing the truth of Him as a true pascal lamb and the realization of the OT Passover and his role as the high priest both offering and victim and the life in His flesh and blood. It's both/and not either/or.

1 Corinthians 11:26-29

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

 

[Panevino]

A b'rit (which we would translate as "covenant" but unlike a covenant, requires blood) is not consumed... the bible OVER and OVER and OVER again, says not to ingest blood. Sprinkling on the people but not ingested.

If this is SO important to you all that you insist on trying to correct my error... then aside from Yeshua's words, show me even one place in Scripture where a person of God drinks blood. Just one place will do, thanks.

Does not exist but these verses are clearly confident to boldly talk about it
Obviously in the context of a divine pascal lamb(and the OT clarification that life is in the blood)

1cor11:23-29 and 1cor10:16
John 6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
John 6:61-64

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

 

[chaz491]

It is Hebraic idiomatic speech that we don't use today and don't recognize it as such. Since his body was sitting at the table when he held up the bread, and since his blood had not been spilled when he held up the cup... then I simply take it as a memorial, in remembrance of the greatest act in human history. But I don't make him relive the event every week.

Don't feel bad. Many other disciples couldn't accept this either (Jn 6:60)

What will you think if you saw the Son of man ascend up where he was before? I think Christ was saying to the disciples that couldn't accept what he had to say about eating his flesh and drinking his blood that if they couldn't accept this, then how would they be able to accept the ascension? He could just as well say the same thing to people today who cannot accept what he had to say about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

 

[Mountainmike]

Are you aware?

A number of Eucharistic miracles HAVE been tested in forensic labs recently e.g. tixtla, sokolka, Buenos Aires, legnica - the first was lanciano.


And in all cases came to the conclusion
1/ the blood is real human blood
2/ the material is human heart myocardium - showing the pathology of severe beating,
3/ that the recent samples were alive as demonstrated by white cells. That should not happen in vitro: white cells should lyse within hours, these are viable months and years after.
4/ but whilst the nucleii look viable , the genetic material will not replicate: which it would if it were fraudulent. But then Jesus didn't have an earthly father , so is it really a surprise?

In John 4:34 (WEB) Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work."

If Jesus' food was to do the work the Lord had assigned him, then he may have offered this food to those who followed him along with the bread and wine at the table.

In John 15:5 Jesus compared himself to a leading trunk of the vine: "I am the vine. You are the branches. He who remains in me, and I in him, the same bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." This does not mean we should think of Jesus as having bark instead of skin, nor that individual believers should be sprouting leaves and clusters of grapes from their limbs, but this like the Lord's supper must be a metaphor.

No one has tested the Catholic eucharist in a lab and discovered the genetic profile or DNA sequencing of Christ the Messiah.

 

[Mountainmike]

Other aspects to consider :

When Jesus said eat his body, He didn't use a generic word to " consume" his body, as he would have done had his meaning been symbolic, he used a word that literally means " gnaw" , as would be used for meat.

His supporters were so horrified at capernaum, in John 6:fifties, that they left in droves , so it is clear they did understand he meant "eat his flesh, drink his blood" an anathema to Jews. That's why they left.

Instead of correcting the misunderstanding, as he could have done, Jesus just asked Peter and the others " will you leave too?"

Paul tells us it is really flesh and blood, and that" to eat and drink unworthily is to profane". How can you profane a symbol?

The romans thought early Christians were cannibals, no doubt because of what was whispered about what went on behind closed doors in the Eucharist!

Early writings - e.g. Ignatius to smyrneans , only a generation after apostles, not only confirm real presence, but that it is only a valid Eucharist if performed by bishop or appointee. So that Is what was handed down by apostles. How can a memorial / symbol be invalid?

There is no case at all for a symbolic only eucharist- which is false doctrine - man made medieval tradition by reformationists, and that is all.

There is a case for INVALID Eucharist, if not performed by those in succession, and in communion with the true church. Ask ignatius of Antioch.

 

[1213]

The disciples in John 6:60 certainly thought he really meant his flesh and blood. They couldn't accept it. This is why they turned away and no longer followed him.

And I think they made a mistake, because Jesus continued by saying:

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
John 6:63


Truly, truly I tell you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death at all.”
John. 8:51

On basis of those, it is his words that matter the most.

 

[buzuxi02]

The Eucharist can be given symbolic interpretations and images, but every ancient Church predating the 1600''s also believe it is a literal mysteriological change into the body and blood of Christ. Doesn't matter if it's the Assyrians of Iraq, Lutherans, Greek Orthodox, Antiochan's of Syria, Copts, Latins, etc.

Some arguments given here are bad counters. Jesus may have said he is the door but absolutely no one ever in history believed he was a wooden plank. We know the early Christians were called cannibals by Roman authorities (130ad) and this is why it's always refered to as the bloodless sacrifice.

The reason why Christians do not eat animals strangled which INCLUDES any animal that has died by blunt force trauma is because animals should be slaughtered so the earth can receive it's blood nothing to do with pagans. When God confronted Cain, He said the blood of your brother cries out from the earth. The life force is in the blood that why we are commanded not to consume it. Jesus on the other hand being the God- man offers up his blood to us as a rejuvenating life force.

The Greek word remembrance (αναμνήσεις ) means, "to make present something from the past". It does not simply mean a mental notation of a past event. It can imply a replication or actualization of a past event. And that's precisely how it's used in Hebrews 10.3.