Lords supper is symbolic

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Spirit and Life are separate and different from carnal and despicable.

 

[Episaw]

It sounds like what you have in mind is the the Roman Catholic Transubstantiation, which means "change of substance", whereby the essence of the bread and wine changes into the physical body and blood of Christ. This is not what I believe, for I believe the Eucharist to be incomprehensible, but Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic explanation of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Likewise, Catholics teach that the Eucharist can only be consecrated by a priest. Again, here Protestants may differ from our Catholic friends, for we profess that it's apprehended by faith and in the promise of God alone. However, it is the office of the Church to preach the Word of God and administer the sacraments, but not in an exclusive or Levitical way.

It may be helpful to consider these questions:
1. Who instituted the Eucharist?
The Eucharist is not of human origin, but divine origin. The Church has received it from the hands of the Son of God; it was ordained by our Lord Jesus Christ. Though the sacrament has many names,"Eucharist" simply means "thanksgiving", which is the same breaking of the bread the apostles and the early church did - and that we still do. The breaking of the bread was not merely recommended, but, out of love, commanded by our Lord that we should do it. It's a holy covenant and final will that Christ instituted before his crucifixion.

2. For what reason was the Eucharist instituted?
The holy sacraments, instituted by God, consists of something earthly, and of something heavenly; by which act God not only seals the promise of grace, peculiar to the Gospel, that is, the gracious forgiveness of sins, but also through the elements truly imparts to everyone who partakes of the sacraments, heavenly possessions, which he promised at the institution of the sacraments, and which are appropriated to believers for their salvation. Only through faith are the sacraments are rightly used. It's even written that whoever participates in the Eucharist in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord, which is a severe offense.

For reference, see: Matthew 26:26-28 John 6:51-57 Acts 2:42 Acts 2:46-47 Acts 20:7 1 Corinthians 10:16-22 1 Corinthians 11:20-34

The style of the Eucharist often vary because it's adiaphora (things not commanded nor forbidden in Scripture), which is only done in a particular way for the purpose of good order in the service. Just as some churches have contemporary music and style, while others have traditional music and style - likewise, the Eucharist may be presented differently, though it is the same breaking of the bread as ever.

Quick food for thought - if the early church in Acts were devoted to the Eucharist, why are people so down on it in our day?

You have obviously not read my original post so I would suggest that you do and then come back with any comments.

46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

In regard to the scriptures you posted to show how you have ignored the obvious, this passage says that they did eat their MEAT with gladness. Not their biscuit or sip of wine...their MEAT.

In Middle East parlance to break bread is to join me for a meal.

And the early church in Acts were not devoted to the eucharist because it did not exist. They were Jews so they were devoted to the Jewish meals i.e Passover.

 

[Albion]

Well, that's just flatly wrong. The first Christians were indeed Christians. They remained Jews and went to synagogue, etc. but they did observe the meal we have come to call Holy Communion.

This is recorded in the earliest passages in the New Testament, as is the difference between the common meal and the holy meal, both of which were celebrated by them.

 

[Episaw]

Well, that's just flatly wrong. The first Christians were indeed Christians. They remained Jews and went to synagogue, etc. but they did observe the meal we have come to call Holy Communion.

This is recorded in the earliest passages in the New Testament, as is the difference between the common meal and the holy meal, both of which were celebrated by them.

If that is what you think, then all you have to do is prove it. But remember you are responding to someone who spent two years studying the subject which included the writings of over 40 authors.

And when I say prove it, I don't want your opinion.

 

[Episaw]

It may be helpful to consider these questions:
1. Who instituted the Eucharist?

2. For what reason was the Eucharist instituted?

1. Answer. The Roman Catholic Church.

2. Answer. They thought they knew better than God and to keep the masses under their thumb.

 

[Albion]

1. Answer. The Roman Catholic Church.

I'd recommend reading 40 books on this subject before settling on such a defective conclusion as that one.

 

[Episaw]

I'd recommend reading 40 books on this subject before settling on such a defective conclusion as that one.

Prove me wrong. So far all I have had is sarcastic comments devoid of any grace and evidence.

Your arrogance is evident by the fact that you have miserably failed to work out if I have read over 40 authors who have written about the New Testament Church it is clearly obvious most of them will have said something about this topic.

One of the best I read was by Hans Kung a catholic, mainly due to the fact he surprised me on his take on things.

And as I said I didn't want your opinion and strangely that is all you gave me so you definitely need to brush up on debating skills.

 

[Daniel9v9]

1. Answer. The Roman Catholic Church.

2. Answer. They thought they knew better than God and to keep the masses under their thumb.

Sorry to say you're mistaken here, friend. We can know this plainly from the Word where Paul say he received the breaking of the bread from the Lord and then passed it onto the church (mainly gentiles, inasmuch as he was an apostle to the gentiles). It's not a Jewish rite, but a sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Scripture clearly says so in 1 Corinthians 10:16

We can also know about the Eucharist from church history. For example, you can find instructions for the Eucharist in the Didache and the writings of the church fathers. If we claim that the Eucharist is some made up rite, we have to ignore the early church and some pretty clear Biblical Scripture (as referenced in my earlier post)

 

[StevenBelievin]

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?

Do you really believe that when Jesus handed the disciples the bread and said "this is my body" that it actually became His body / flesh? The bible doesn't say it actually became His body, so if someone wants to believe that, shouldn't we have to have a scripture that actually says that? When Jesus turned the water into wine the scriptures made it clear that the water actually turned into wine. There is no such scripture for the Catholic belief of the bread actually becoming flesh and the wine actually becoming blood.

 

[EmethAlethia]

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?

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink this cup of My blood, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mar 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of this cup of My blood, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Luk 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of this cup of blood, until the kingdom of God shall come.

See, Jesus Himself said it was His blood after blessing it. He said it was the cup of His blood afterwards and that He wouldn’t drink of this cup of my blood till His kingdom came. It’s recorded 3 times for all to see who want to see. Do you have eyes to see and ears to hear what the Lord really says?

If you don’t trust that what Jesus really said is true, how could you trust things like, “Upon this rock I build My church” … or who Jesus said Peter was shortly thereafter?

We need to read what it actually says and trust Jesus to be accurate and “believe”, and then alter our lives, our practices and our liturgies to conform to the truth of what it says and means.



And, AS ALWAYS, examine the scriptures diligently daily and see if what I said is true.

 

[Episaw]

Sorry to say you're mistaken here, friend. We can know this plainly from the Word where Paul say he received the breaking of the bread from the Lord and then passed it onto the church (mainly gentiles, inasmuch as he was an apostle to the gentiles). It's not a Jewish rite, but a sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Scripture clearly says so in 1 Corinthians 10:16

We can also know about the Eucharist from church history. For example, you can find instructions for the Eucharist in the Didache and the writings of the church fathers. If we claim that the Eucharist is some made up rite, we have to ignore the early church and some pretty clear Biblical Scripture (as referenced in my earlier post)

And sorry to say you are mistaken. Paul's account that you are referring to was in the context of the agape meal and that passage was to teach them how to behave at the agape meal.

I have never seen anything to do with the eucharist in the context of the agape meal. Why is that? it seems to me you are just one more who picks out the bits that suit them and ignores the bits that don't.

And once again, in scripture breaking of bread means a meal, not a religious symbol of a wafer and sip of wine. I have read several books about customs in the Middle East and they all say that to be invited to break bread means an invitation to a meal. In the original Greek, it is an invitation to eat meat.

To invite someone to break bread with you and then offer them a biscuit and a glass of wine would be a total insult.

 

[Episaw]

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink this cup of My blood, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mar 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of this cup of My blood, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Luk 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of this cup of blood, until the kingdom of God shall come.

See, Jesus Himself said it was His blood after blessing it. He said it was the cup of His blood afterwards and that He wouldn’t drink of this cup of my blood till His kingdom came. It’s recorded 3 times for all to see who want to see. Do you have eyes to see and ears to hear what the Lord really says?

If you don’t trust that what Jesus really said is true, how could you trust things like, “Upon this rock I build My church” … or who Jesus said Peter was shortly thereafter?

We need to read what it actually says and trust Jesus to be accurate and “believe”, and then alter our lives, our practices and our liturgies to conform to the truth of what it says and means.

And, AS ALWAYS, examine the scriptures diligently daily and see if what I said is true.

Yes, we do need to read what it actually says and what you says it says it doesn't. All you have done is put your spin on it and parroted incorrect teaching on the subject which you would see if you read my original post.

If you are not endowed with the gift of teaching, you should not give the impression you are as that is false.

I examined the scriptures daily for over two years in regard to this topic and read over 40 authors who have written about it and it is clear what you say is not true.

 

[wilts43]

Yes, we do need to read what it actually says and what you says it says it doesn't. All you have done is put your spin on it and parroted incorrect teaching on the subject which you would see if you read my original post.

If you are not endowed with the gift of teaching, you should not give the impression you are as that is false.

I examined the scriptures daily for over two years in regard to this topic and read over 40 authors who have written about it and it is clear what you say is not true.

Sorry, I've been reading your posts and would invite you to say yet again how many authors have you consulted?
Would you like to say it again lest anyone is unclear or dares to question your point of view?
I suppose we need all the Catholic & Orthodox scholars who spent whole lives reading maybe 400 authors to dare challenge you?

Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom"

 

[chaz491]

Sorry, I've been reading your posts and would invite you to say yet again how many authors have you consulted?
Would you like to say it again lest anyone is unclear or dares to question your point of view?
I suppose we need all the Catholic & Orthodox scholars who spent whole lives reading maybe 400 authors to dare challenge you?

Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom"

When you get talking to them, you will start to notice that they do not believe in the Church. In their world experience, it comes as no surprise though. All they have experienced is their own churches. In their world, there is no such thing as heresy since every man believes as he or she is convicted. Want gay marriage? Drop the church that preaches against it and go find a church that supports it or does not teach against it. They are lost and the only thing they have is a Bible. If I were in their shoes, I would not trust religious authority and I wouldn't believe in the church either. God forbid telling them everything wasn't written down in the Bible, and there is an oral tradition that goes back 2000 years. Want to get scoffed at? Try having a conversation about that Even though Paul tells the early Christians to hang onto what they have been taught whether in writings or orally.

Anyway, it is no wonder Protestant converts to the Catholic faith say there were things in the Bible they never knew existed until they became Catholic. People can't see some things until they experience living the Catholic faith.

 

[Tangible]

@Greg Merrill and others quoting "the flesh profiteth nothing" ...

I hope you realize that to be consistent, you must also then say that Jesus' sinless flesh tortured, mutilated, dead on the cross, resting in the tomb, and raised to new life on the third day, and ascended into Heaven also "profiteth nothing."

 

[wilts43]

Matt 12 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here.


Christ is the quintisential Davidic King.....He will give His followers sacred bread.
And Christ compares his followers to greater priests of a greater temple
And the old priests “desecration” of the Sabbath was in preparation the “Bread of the Presence”.
The Pharisees ignored this matter, and condemned the Priests of the New Covenant “preparing bread” for the Greater Temple (of Christ).

He is prophesying that His priests (of His temple) will prepare the new Bread of the Presence on the new Sabbeth. And, as always, that of the New Covenant is much greater than its foreshadow in the Old Covenant.

And He tells us in John 6 how exactly the New Bread is better.....it is Real Flesh.....His Flesh.....Your fathers ate manna in the desert & died.

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world”

So Christ claims to be a newer, better Manna coming down from Heaven in John 6 , (And he tells us to ask the Father for “supernatural bread” (epiousiou) in the Our Father.

He also claims here to be the New Bread of The Presence.....which the priests offered to God on the Sabbath and took out on occasion and lifted up in front of the people saying “Behold God's love for you”

He is the New Passover Lamb......and you had to actually eat the Lamb to be saved.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

1. Answer. The Roman Catholic Church.

2. Answer. They thought they knew better than God and to keep the masses under their thumb.

Prove someone wrong. OK.

Where is there an RCC in the first and second century?


Saint Ignatius

I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans​

Saint Hippolytus (various quotes)

but the sanctuaries of the churches will become like a garden-watcher's hut, and the holy body and blood of Christ will not be shown in those days.

Come, you hierarchs, who did me sacred service blamelessly day and night, and made the oblation of my honourable body and blood daily.

it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper.

And again, "And to those that want understanding she said"— that is, to those who have not yet obtained the power of the Holy Ghost— "Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you; "by which is meant, that He gave His divine flesh and honoured blood to us, to eat and to drink it for the remission of sins.​

 

[Philip_B]

1. Answer. The Roman Catholic Church.

Incorrect. The correct answer is Jesus Christ.

2. Answer. They thought they knew better than God and to keep the masses under their thumb.

Incorrect. The correct answer is that we might be nourished and assured of his presence for ever.

 

[EmethAlethia]

Yes, we do need to read what it actually says and what you says it says it doesn't.

My friend, I was hoping that someone, just a single person, would actually do what God says and be noble minded, or be a workman and diligently labor in the word, seeking to cut straight all that the passages I mentioned said and meant... And then ... post what those passages actually do say and mean.

Alas, this was not the case.

This is what I said:

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink this cup of My blood, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

This is what the bible really says:

Mat 26:28　 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29　 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.　

Some people may "want" to change the fact that Jesus, after His prayers and after the Lord's supper still called it the fruit of the vine, and did not call it His blood.

Likewise in this passage also, after the Lord's supper Jesus again refers to it as the fruit of the vine. not the cup of His blood.

Mar 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

And again, Jesus doesn't state that it was changed into His blood, and that He wouldn't drink His own blood with them "again" until His kingdom comes.

Luk 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

And this, if the passages really were looked at and studied in an actual bible translation, would have been seen for what it was"

"See, Jesus Himself said it was His blood after blessing it. He said it was the cup of His blood afterwards and that He wouldn’t drink of this cup of my blood till His kingdom came. It’s recorded 3 times for all to see who want to see. Do you have eyes to see and ears to hear what the Lord really says?"

It is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the bible really does say and mean. "If they had eyes to see and ears to hear", that is.

I continued:

"If you don’t trust that what Jesus really said is true, how could you trust things like, “Upon this rock I build My church” … or who Jesus said Peter was shortly thereafter?".

Again, "if" they had eyes to see and ears to hear, EVEN IF they believed that Jesus words to Peter really meant that the church was founded on him, (And no good Roman Catholic wants to believe the next statement of Jesus about Peter was true, just the first part.) The point being, how can you pick and choose what you want to believe out of scripture, say that even Jesus stated that it was still wine afterwards, and then say that the passage on Peter being the foundation of the church is correct? Answer: You can't.

This part is exactly what is true:

"We need to read what it actually says and trust Jesus to be accurate and “believe”, and then alter our lives, our practices and our liturgies to conform to the truth of what it says and means."

I know that from the Roman Catholic perspective, the only correct interpretation is the official interpretation of the church. But then, the Mormon's say that and the Jehovah's Witnesses say that and ... and everyone in every belief group "believes" their religious leaders and experts .

 

[Greg Merrill]

@Greg Merrill and others quoting "the flesh profiteth nothing" ...

I hope you realize that to be consistent, you must also then say that Jesus' sinless flesh tortured, mutilated, dead on the cross, resting in the tomb, and raised to new life on the third day, and ascended into Heaven also "profiteth nothing."

Wrong! Profiteth nothing in so far as eating it (the context of Jn 6) not of all this you have written above.