The Lord's supper / Holy Communion

dignitized · Jan 1, 2003

Originally posted by FluviusNeckar
Au contraire. Nothing in the canonical books indicates that the Apostles or the early Christians took Jesus as literally as later Church Fathers did.

Nothing in the canonical books??

I refer you to the canonical book of 1 Corinthians chapter 11. Begining in verse 23 Paul gives an exposition on the Form of the Lords Supper - an exposition which ends with a very interesting verse. Verse 27 states:

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.

How can I be guilty of the body of Christ by eating a piece of mere bread?  How can I be guilty of the Lord Blood by drinking from a cup of water and wine? This verse clearly requires that the believer accept that Christ is REAL in the Eucharist

 

Thank you.

 

Julie · Jan 1, 2003

The Bible teaches that the Lords supper is a memorial, symbol or commemoration of the suffering, sacrificial and atoning death of our Saviour The Lord Jesus Christ. The broken bread pictures his broken and bruised body which was delivered up for us and the cup is the new covenant in his blood which was poured out for us (1 Cor. 11:24-25; Lk. 22:19-20).

 

And as the Bible clearly states it shows his death TILL HE COMES! Praise God!

He is coming again, are you ready?

1 Corinthians 11

23   For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24   And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
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.
27   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.
28   But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29   For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30   For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31   For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32   But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

1 Corinthians 10:21
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

FluviusNeckar · Jan 1, 2003

Originally posted by Br. Max
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.

How can I be guilty of the body of Christ by eating a piece of mere bread?  How can I be guilty of the Lord Blood by drinking from a cup of water and wine? This verse clearly requires that the believer accept that Christ is REAL in the Eucharist

How can the water of baptism effect the washing away of sins unless God recognizes that water as the symbol of the bllod which washes us clean. Does the water of baptism also become the blood of Christ in your literal world view.

dignitized · Jan 1, 2003

Flavious: don't be so carnally minded there is more to the world and to the Christian walk than those things which can only be grasped by the senses.

You think that just because it looks like bread and smells like bread and tastes like bread then it MUST be bread. But you forget that Christ said when he held up the bread - THIS [referring to the bread] IS [not symbolizes or represents but literally is] MY [not yours not Paul's not peters but Christ's] Body [meaning his flesh]. Do you doubt the Lord knew what he was saying??

( if you would care to discuss baptism - that is a topic for another thread lets stay on topic )

dignitized · Jan 1, 2003

Originally posted by Julie
The Bible teaches that the Lords supper is a memorial, symbol or commemoration of the suffering, sacrificial and atoning death of our Saviour The Lord Jesus Christ. The broken bread pictures his broken and bruised body which was delivered up for us and the cup is the new covenant in his blood which was poured out for us[/size] (1 Cor. 11:24-25; Lk. 22:19-20).
And as the Bible clearly states it shows his death TILL HE COMES! Praise God!

1 - making your type fact huge does not make your words more poignant, it only show how weak your argument truly is.

2 - The bible does not teach that the Lords supper is a memmorial. Quite the contrary Christ himself confessed over the bread and wine - this IS My body, this IS my blood. He also says in the gospel of John - that his BODY is meat indeed and His blood drink. Finally in the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Paul says that to receive of the Lords table UNWORTHILY is to be GUILTY of the body and blood of Christ! How can I be guilty of a memorial or an empty symbol??

3 - Yes we are to do it OFTEN and in memory of Him - remembering what HE said - This bread is MY BODY, this cup is the cup of MY BLOOD do you doubt Christ? Did he lie when he said that??

Honestly step back and put aside what you have been taught to believe and read the verses for what they confess. There was no doubt in the Apostolic church as to how those passages were to be received.

Take for example an apostolic contemporary Ignatius of Antioch. He was a student of the apostles and confessed:
<DIR>
<DIR>"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. " (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).</DIR></DIR>If you interpretation is correct - show me in the apostolic fathers or the anti-Nicaean fathers some expression that the Eucharist is a memorial. If you interpretation is the truth it will have been held by the early church and thus, written about.

FluviusNeckar · Jan 1, 2003

Originally posted by Br. Max
You think that just because it looks like bread and smells like bread and tastes like bread then it MUST be bread. But you forget that Christ said when he held up the bread - THIS [referring to the bread] IS [not symbolizes or represents but literally is] MY [not yours not Paul's not peters but Christ's] Body [meaning his flesh]. Do you doubt the Lord knew what he was saying??

( if you would care to discuss baptism - that is a topic for another thread lets stay on topic )

LOL.

If it looks, smells, and tastes like bread and wine, most of us will need more than your literal redaction of Jesus' words to justify medieval superstition. You avoided the analogy to baptism because that analogy exposes an inconsistency in your position on the sacraments. Either the waters of baptism and the wine of the communion become the actual blood of Jesus or neither does.

dignitized · Jan 1, 2003

No sir there is no weakness to the argument. Baptism is the watery grave. In receiving it you die to your past - your old self. I simply wish to stay ON TOPIC is that too much to ask??

As for "medieval superstitions" you are speaking of beliefs that date back to the primitive church. SO they are HARDLY medieval. The "medieval" period of history does not start until the fall of the Roman empire in the west. So your claims that the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper are medieval is bogus.

Now, concerning superstitions . . . .The doctrine of the Real Presence is neither ignorantly formed nor maintained in light of contrary evidences so to call it superstition is to demonstrate your own irrational biases. I have show you not only in scripture, but also in HISTORY and yet you still refuse to believe.

You cannot and have not shown any evidence which contradicts the doctrine of the real presence except reference to "do this in remembrance" which you have taken to imply that the Eucharist is only a symbolic act. I have already refuted that argument so I will refrain from doing so again

dignitized · Jan 1, 2003

don't they teach metaphysics anymore??

Andrew · Jan 1, 2003

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.

How can I be guilty of the body of Christ by eating a piece of mere bread?Ê How can I be guilty of the Lord Blood by drinking from a cup of water and wine?ÊThis verse clearly requires that the believer accept that Christ is REAL in the Eucharist

The point of the verse is taking the communion UNWORTHILY (party fashion as described in the chapter, not with reverence)-- that makes one guilty of the body and blood. I fail to see how this verse is telling us that Christ is literally in the bread -- that's just inference by a long stretch or jumping to a conclusion.

But if there really is a verse that clearly states that Christ manifests as the bread and the wine turns into his blood, and that only Catholic priests can do this correctly, then pls show us.

dignitized · Jan 1, 2003

Originally posted by Andrew

The point of the verse is taking the communion UNWORTHILY (party fashion as described in the chapter, not with reverence)-- that makes one guilty of the body and blood. I fail to see how this verse is telling us that Christ is literally in the bread -- that's just inference by a long stretch or jumping to a conclusion.

There is no inference. The passage refers to partaking of the Lord's table in an unworthy fashion. And that to DO so - to partake of the Eucharist in a unworthy fashion is to be GUILTY of the Body and Blood of Christ. The verse refers to an ACTION taken in an improper way. It is a GIVEN that as a Christian they would partake of the Eucharist - but to do so in a way that is deemed unworthy of a Christian - is to be GUILTY of the Body and Blood which are present in the Eucharist. There is no stretch there. Its right there in the open.

BTW- incase you did not realize this - I'm NOT Roman Catholic - never have been nor will be.

Andrew · Jan 1, 2003

There is no inference. The passage refers to partaking of the Lord's table in an unworthy fashion. And that to DO so - to partake of the Eucharist in a unworthy fashion is to be GUILTY of the Body and Blood of Christ. The verse refers to an ACTION taken in an improper way. It is a GIVEN that as a Christian they would partake of the Eucharist - but to do so in a way that is deemed unworthy of a Christian - is to be GUILTY of the Body and Blood which are present in the Eucharist. There is no stretch there. Its right there in the open.

I said it was an inference/stretch bcos the "unworthy" fashion which the chapter talks abt was not: not recognising that Jesus was literally made into the bread by the Catholic priest. that's not in the chapter. the unworthy fashion is taking it party style which the context clearly shows.

I also said it was a stretch becos you were using this verse to prove that Jesus becomes the bread. There's no mention of such a thing in the chapter.

BTW- incase you did not realize this - I'm NOT Roman Catholic - never have been nor will be.

yes i know.

dignitized · Jan 1, 2003

I merely stated - HOW can a man be guilty of the BODY and BLOOD of Christ in taking the Eucharist in an unworthy fashion it is only bread and wine that is being taken? IF however, it is the Body and Blood of Christ -as Jesus said - then you can be guilty and the passage make sence.

dignitized · Jan 1, 2003

andrew: no mention of teh bread and wine becoming the body and blood?? How can you read - THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD and not see the bread and wine becoming the Body and blood?

Andrew · Jan 1, 2003

andrew: no mention of teh bread and wine becoming the body and blood?? How can you read - THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD and not see the bread and wine becoming the Body and blood?

well then if you want to take it so literally, then how come Jesus is still standing there or eating with them when he's supposed to have turned into the bread and wine?

Sounds ridiculous right? so what r u saying, when the priest does the communion today, Jesus leaves the right hand of his Father and turns into the bread, gets eaten etc.? How does he then return to heaven?

And why cldnt Jesus have been 'symbolical' abt it. You mean when Jesus says I'm the bread of life, Lion of Judah etc he's literally bread and a lion? Where do you decide which is symbolic and which is literal? Clearly, in the pasage you quoted, it is very much symbolic becos Jesus didnt disappear and turn into bread.

FluviusNeckar · Jan 1, 2003

Originally posted by Br. Max
No sir there is no weakness to the argument. Baptism is the watery grave. In receiving it you die to your past - your old self. I simply wish to stay ON TOPIC is that too much to ask??

You still have not addressed the internal inconsistency of your position and presume to lecture on irrationality. LOL! Superstition is superstition. Jesus said he was a door. That doesn't make him a door. Jesus said the bread and wine were his body yet you have to believe that he was speaking literally because otherwise your whole superstition system starts to crumble.

You want to stay on point----address the baptism argument and quit avoiding it under the silly excuse of "staying on topic."

Jephunneh · Jan 2, 2003

Originally posted by Julie
The Bible teaches that the Lords supper is a memorial, symbol or commemoration of the suffering, sacrificial and atoning death of our Saviour The Lord Jesus Christ. The broken bread pictures his broken and bruised body which was delivered up for us and the cup is the new covenant in his blood which was poured out for us (1 Cor. 11:24-25; Lk. 22:19-20).

 

And as the Bible clearly states it shows his death TILL HE COMES! Praise God!

He is coming again, are you ready?

1 Corinthians 11

23   For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24   And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
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.
27   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.
28   But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29   For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30   For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31   For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32   But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

1 Corinthians 10:21
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

Now I understand, thanks for the post! !

dignitized · Jan 2, 2003

Originally posted by Andrew
well then if you want to take it so literally, then how come Jesus is still standing there or eating with them when he's supposed to have turned into the bread and wine?

Sounds ridiculous right? so what r u saying, when the priest does the communion today, Jesus leaves the right hand of his Father and turns into the bread, gets eaten etc.? How does he then return to heaven?

And why cldnt Jesus have been 'symbolical' abt it. You mean when Jesus says I'm the bread of life, Lion of Judah etc he's literally bread and a lion? Where do you decide which is symbolic and which is literal? Clearly, in the pasage you quoted, it is very much symbolic becos Jesus didnt disappear and turn into bread.

What is ridiculous is the idea that saying the bread and wine are His body and blood means that it is his CARNAL PHYSICAL body.  Christ stood there and said in the flesh and said this bread is MY body this CUP is the cup of MY blood.  There is no room in that equation for the elements to be other than what HE as GOD said they were or do you think God limited by time and space so that He cannot be both physically present His Carnal body and present in the Eucharist also? God is ALL-powerful and omnipresent which means; He can be in all places at once.  He is neither bound by time nor by space.
 
Now YES Christ is the bread of life in the EUCHARIST and he is the Lion of Judah he is also the door to heaven - ALL LITERALLY - just not CARNALLY.  If you would but take the time to understand what a door is you would see that YES Christ is a door.  Does that mean hes made of wood and has hinges NO dont be foolish!  Nowhere in the definition of the word door is are hinges required, nor is the substance the door is made of dictated.  A door is a portal, which allows and regulates access to a place.  We must come through the portal, which is Christ, in order to have access to the Kingdom of Heaven. We cannot go AROUND Him, we cannot go over or under Him we must go THROUGH Him. its really not all that amazing if you but shed your carnal mind and stop thinking of what your senses tell you as being truth.
 
Pax et bonum.
 
I will pray for the liberation of your soul from your carnal senses.

dignitized · Jan 2, 2003

A PLAGUE AND A CURSE ON MICRSOFT WORD!!!

dignitized · Jan 2, 2003

What is ridiculous is the idea that saying the bread and wine are His body and blood means that it is his CARNAL PHYSICAL body. Christ stood there and said in the flesh and said this bread is MY body this CUP is the cup of MY blood. There is no room in that equation for the elements to be other than what HE as GOD said they were or do you think God limited by time and space so that He cannot be both physically present His Carnal body and present in the Eucharist also? God is ALL-powerful and omnipresent which means; He can be in all places at once. He is neither bound by time nor by space.

Now YES Christ is the bread of life in the EUCHARIST and he is the Lion of Judah he is also the door to heaven - ALL LITERALLY - just not CARNALLY. If you would but take the time to understand what a door is you would see that YES Christ is a door. Does that mean hes made of wood and has hinges NO dont be foolish! Nowhere in the definition of the word door is are hinges required, nor is the substance the door is made of dictated. A door is a portal, which allows and regulates access to a place. We must come through the portal, which is Christ, in order to have access to the Kingdom of Heaven. We cannot go AROUND Him, we cannot go over or under Him we must go THROUGH Him. its really not all that amazing if you but shed your carnal mind and stop thinking of what your senses tell you as being truth.

Pax et bonum.

I will pray for the liberation of your soul from your carnal senses.

sklippstein · Jan 2, 2003

A PLAGUE AND A CURSE ON MICRSOFT WORD!!!

 

YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Lord's supper / Holy Communion

What do you beleive to be the real nature of 'Communion'?

Purely and simply an act of remembrance.

Christ is spiritually present in the bread and wine.

Christ is really present in/under the bread and wine (consubstantiation)

The bread and wine are the actual body and blood of the Lord (transubstantiation)

Other (please specify)

Well-Known Member

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency