Lords supper is symbolic

[Dave-W]

The only people in the early church that believed it was symbolic were the heretics of the day.

As you define it now. Do you know what went thru the mind of those 12 observant Jewish men when He said that?

 

[Dave-W]

but every ancient Church predating the 1600''s also believe it is a literal mysteriological change into the body and blood of Christ.

How about pre-dating the 60s ad? Before the destruction of the Temple, and before the Bar Kochba revolt that separated the early Church from the Synagogue?

 

[buzuxi02]

How about pre-dating the 60s ad? Before the destruction of the Temple, and before the Bar Kochba revolt that separated the early Church from the Synagogue?

You reject the gospel of John because it's written after 70 AD and has anti-semitic remarks? Well we have this:

1 Corinthians 11:27-30 ( 55 A.D. Notice how those drinking unworthily are dying and getting sick. See also 1 Corinthians 10:16-17)

Hebrews 6:2-5 (illumined-ancient adjective for baptism. Tasted heavenly gift- Bread and the Cup. Become Partakers of Holy Spirit- laying on of hands.)

 

[Dave-W]

You reject the gospel of John because it's written after 70 AD and has anti-semitic remarks?

Not at all. Did you miss what I was asking?

BTW - John does NOT have anti-Semitic remarks at all. (at least not in the original Greek or the Aramaic) Translators have added that in.

 

[Panevino]

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

christs flesh is not useless. He said so.
There is something else going on with this verse.

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.

 

[Dwells]

Just a question:
Why was Adam told not to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of life? What was achieved, eternal life or mortality? How does this compare to eating flesh and blood for eternal life when it was taught that the blood of any sacrifice must not be eaten and was forbidden?

 

[newlightseven]

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?

Not sure why many Catholics think all protestants think it is just a symbol. My Churches that I go to are protestant and we believe that it is the body and blood. I hope this clears this up for you.

God Bless

 

[Dwells]

What if Jesus was a vegetarian and He wanted to stop the practice of sacrificing any living creatures in order for God to forgive? How would you interpret the eucharist then?
What if we are not to glorify the cross but remember Him through the communion of sharing a meal together?

 

[gabbi0408]

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?

As far as I know there is no such Bible verse.

I'm a convert to Catholicism, and did not truly understand the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist at first. After 20 years I continue to learn and be amazed at the supernatural depth and divine gift it truly is.

Catholics do not believe we are receiving the 2000 year old corporal Body and Blood of Christ. We are receiving his full glorified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

The Church teaches that the bread is changed into Christ's body and the wine into his blood, and that his soul and divinity become present through concomitance. He is one indivisible being, so when the bread is changed into his body, the whole Christ necessarily becomes present. But the actual transubstantiation—the changing of one substance into another—is only of his body and blood. It is the change of a material substance into another material substance.

As the Council of Trent says, the body is "… under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who has now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together: and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with his body and soul."

 

[Panevino]

What if Jesus was a vegetarian and He wanted to stop the practice of sacrificing any living creatures in order for God to forgive? How would you interpret the eucharist then?
What if we are not to glorify the cross but remember Him through the communion of sharing a meal together?

It's more profound than that
He is called the lamb of God for a reason

1 Corinthians 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

 

[Tangible]

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

This passage is often misunderstood. A quick referral to greater context will show that the word flesh here refers to works of the flesh, that is, works of man.

The word of God is spirit and truth, his word is active, it accomplishes the purpose he sends it for. If Jesus says the bread is his body and the wine is his blood, he is giving us his word that that is what we receive from his hand.

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.

It is precisely because of Jesus' words that we can know that he is truly present for us in Holy Communion.

 

[LadyCrosstalk]

Both positions are correct. And incorrect.

The answer lies in the Exodus of the Seder liturgy - the story and its implication and explanation. Everyone is to approach the Passover seder as if HE HIMSELF was in Egypt on that day and was freed from a lifetime of slavery. Symbolic? Yes; but spiritually much more than that.

Did we come out of Egypt? Yes. We were in our ancestors' loins when they left, just like Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham's loins. (Heb 7.9)

So it is symbolic, but it is actually much more than that. The idea of limiting to one or the other is a product of the Greek western mindset that likes to look at things in isolation and in the abstract. I submit that is the WRONG mindset to approach bibilcal understanding.

Yes, I agree. Calling it a mere symbol is selling it a bit short and dry. It is similar to baptism in its profound meaning. Baptism (by immersion please, as anything else messes up the type) represents our passage from death to life in Christ, and our identification with others who have been called out of the world. Likewise, communion represents our continued uptake of the life of Christ within our own bodies, as individuals, and as the continued uptake of Christ as the corporate Body of Christ. I often wonder why baptism services are not immediately followed by communion services. Doesn't tfit in with the schedule apparently.

 

[Historical Christianity]

The authors of the Bible, as all authors, used various literary styles in their writing. Jesus was never really a shepherd, or bread, or light. All we have is, at best, a third-hand telling of the last supper. From that account, it was the observance of Passover. As leader, he was distributing the elements of Passover. That's what was in his hands. He was making an analogy. That's the only natural way to read this text. Anything else is an absurd imagination.

If you really want to obey the instructions of Jesus, as told in this account, you would do it every year, every time you observe Passover. The whole thing, not some simple caricature of it. No Christian ever does that.

Yes, some early Christians were accused of cannibalism. That was an insulting caricature, a strawman argument. Neither was their 'love one another' principle a series of orgies.

 

[Righttruth]

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?

Eucharist is based on supposition of Paul who said that Jesus asked that to be performed as a remembrance. Jesus never said so. It is spiritually symbolic when based on John 6.

 

[Greg Merrill]

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?

"It is the Spirit that quickenth (makes alives), the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life." Jn 6:63 This would apply to the meaning of the Eucharist.

 

[Tangible]

The authors of the Bible, as all authors, used various literary styles in their writing. Jesus was never really a shepherd, or bread, or light. All we have is, at best, a third-hand telling of the last supper. From that account, it was the observance of Passover. As leader, he was distributing the elements of Passover. That's what was in his hands. He was making an analogy. That's the only natural way to read this text. Anything else is an absurd imagination.

There is a problem with the logic of that argument. The portions of the statements that are to be understood non-literally are not the subject and verb “I am” but the objects “door,” “light,” and “vine.”

We can demonstrate this by the fact that when Jesus made these statements he was claiming to be something, not to represent or be a symbol of something. He was not claiming to represent the Light of the World, but to be the Light of the World. He was not claiming to symbolize the True Vine, but to be the True Vine.

So, if we assume for a moment that your position is correct, then we must also assume that the non-literal portion of the statement “This is my body” is not the word “is” but the word “body.”

If the words “body” and “blood” are non-literal, as are “door,” “light,” and “vine” then what are we to understand “body” and “blood” as actually referring to?

If you really want to obey the instructions of Jesus, as told in this account, you would do it every year, every time you observe Passover. The whole thing, not some simple caricature of it. No Christian ever does that.

Yes, some early Christians were accused of cannibalism. That was an insulting caricature, a strawman argument. Neither was their 'love one another' principle a series of orgies.

It's pretty strange that this is your position, given your username.

 

[wilts43]

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.

It may have been a shock to many Jews..... but Jesus adamantly refused to compromise on the literalcy of this (See John 26-59.) Although many do turn away, never was Jesus more insistent on any point.

Your hypothetical point about, what the early church would have thought, is not encountered in the actual history of the early church.
It is a very common path to Rome for Protestant scholars who study the early church, and the fathers, and discover its eucharistic theology was Catholic/Orthodox.
Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist
And Paul 11:29 "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself".
The first reformers believed in the Real Prescence....until Zwingli. Denial of it is a novelty.

At another level it reduces Christ's first miracle (First Great Sign) at Cana to a party-trick!!
Was it not real wine they drank? Christ changes a substance to nourish people.
Why did the gospel writer bother to record a liquor-store-favour?
These are Signs!
If He turns water to wine; He can turn Bread into Himself
If He can feed thousands with a few loaves and fishes; He can feed the whole world with himself.

At yet another level look up Eucharistic miracles/Signs. Even when blind-tested by laboratories after years, they found living human heart tissue, type AB blood (as common only in Jews), and that it came from a severely beaten individual. They found DNA but could never get a code (code requires a human mum & dad)

or google

“Signs from God — Science Tests Faith"

 

[Tangible]

"It is the Spirit that quickenth (makes alives), the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life." Jn 6:63 This would apply to the meaning of the Eucharist.

As I said a few posts earlier, we have Jesus clear word as recorded in Holy Scripture: "This is my body" and "this is my blood." His word is spirit and truth, it is active, and it accomplishes what he sends it for. The flesh that profiteth nothing clearly refers to works of the flesh, not the flesh of Our Lord. That's a pretty silly argument, frankly.

 

[Greg Merrill]

As I said a few posts earlier, we have Jesus clear word as recorded in Holy Scripture: "This is my body" and "this is my blood." His word is spirit and truth, it is active, and it accomplishes what he sends it for. The flesh that profiteth nothing clearly refers to works of the flesh, not the flesh of Our Lord. That's a pretty silly argument, frankly.

So are you saying that the Lord is promoting canabalism?

 

[Panevino]

"It is the Spirit that quickenth (makes alives), the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life." Jn 6:63 This would apply to the meaning of the Eucharist.

↑

the flesh / spirit in v63 is the dichotomy of approaches to listening to Him

The flesh in John 6:63 is not a reference to the efficacy of Jesus flesh (if you think about it that's absurd when considering His flesh as the divine pascal lamb) 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.