DittoI believe what scripture says about it.
1. In remembrance of Him.
2. Showing the Lord's death until He comes.
1 Cor 11:25-26
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
KJV
Ditto
I believe what scripture says about it.
1. In remembrance of Him.
2. Showing the Lord's death until He comes.
1 Cor 11:25-26
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Playing the role of advocatus diaboli for a moment here:
The Last Supper was the Jewish passover meal. They were going to have that meal anyway.
Playing the role of advocatus diaboli for a moment here:
The Last Supper was the Jewish passover meal. They were going to have that meal anyway.
Playing the role of advocatus diaboli for a moment here:
The Last Supper was the Jewish passover meal. They were going to have that meal anyway.
Well, sign me up for ALL of what Scripture has to say on the matter.
Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Affirmative Theses, Number Three & Four(bolding mine)
So, it's more or less "like whatever you like kinda think 'n stuffz"?
I didn't say at what exact moment during the Consecration that the change happens. But I did say that it DOES happen. If not, then we have no business calling it the Body and Blood of Christ. In that case, the charismatics are right, and we can just as well hold communion with chocolate bars and coke (diet coke....need to watch those calories) because "It's like just kinda symbolic 'n stuffz".
Oh, and Jesus is a liar, too, because it ISN'T really His Body and Blood.
The only other alternative, is to treat all unleavened bread and all wine as the body and blood of Christ, regardless of the circumstances.
The Consecration is THE action by which mere bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ (at the same time as it remains bread and wine)
.
But Mr. Luther's point was simply that the idea that there would be no reason for Jesus to have had the Last Supper unless it had great supernatural meaning a la the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist (as SwordFall was suggesting) simply isn't true. Merely to celebrate the Passover would justify the gathering.
8] 3. Now, as to the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that no work of man or recitation of the minister [of the church] produces this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this is to be ascribed only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He also said that he was a door and a vine. Do you take those statements in the same superliteral manner?
Context....context....context.
Heck, I can't even understand everything you just said in your second
Well...for instance, we have Luke telling us that Jesus said to them, "this (is) my body which is given for you," and "this is God's new covenant sealed with my blood." Also, in Corinthians 11 (from which Optimax cited only verses 25 and 26) we find in vs. 27-32 the admonition that if we eat and drink the communion elements in a dishonorable or disrespectful way, "not recognizing the meaning of the Lord's body..." that we will come under God's judgment for that.
Surely, there is more to this sacrament/ordinance than symbolism. Whatever one's own church teaches or one's own interpretation of all of this, these verses are saying that that it's not as simple as mere symbolism.
^THIS!. How? I have no idea.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?