The Lords supper, symbolic? Or the actual Body and blood of Jesus?

[ihavefoundgod951]

The Israelites in the old testament would to Atone themselves from sin would take a spotless Lamb/bull, the sinner would put his hands on the animal imputing his sin into the animal, in turn taking the lambs innocence to cleanse himself from his unrighteousness. (Atonement sacrifice)

On the cross Jesus became our atonement sacrifice, at the last supper, Jesus said

◄ Matthew 26:28 ►
New International Version
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

He said "this is my body and blood"

◄ John 6:54 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.



My question: is the sacrament symbolic or does the bread and wine supernaturally turn into the Lords body and blood?

Thanks and God bless

 

[ihavefoundgod951]

48I am the bread of life. 49Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51I 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.”

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

 

[tz620q]

The Israelites in the old testament would to Atone themselves from sin would take a spotless Lamb/bull, the sinner would put his hands on the animal imputing his sin into the animal, in turn taking the lambs innocence to cleanse himself from his unrighteousness. (Atonement sacrifice)

On the cross Jesus became our atonement sacrifice, at the last supper, Jesus said

◄ Matthew 26:28 ►
New International Version
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

He said "this is my body and blood"

◄ John 6:54 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.



My question: is the sacrament symbolic or does the bread and wine supernaturally turn into the Lords body and blood?

Thanks and God bless

I had this same thought while reading Leviticus. It struck me that there was this parallel of physical touching to transfer the sin into the sacrifice between the OT lambs and the Eucharist (Lord's Supper). The purpose of the Lord's Supper became clear. It gives us today (and throughout time) a way to link to Christ's Passion. So is it symbolic? Sure, in many ways; but it does not end there and Christ who came to the world in human flesh to be our sacrifice, stoops today into humanity to offer himself as our eternal savior. A great mystery and one that cannot be adequately explained by human mind.

 

[Albion]

My question: is the sacrament symbolic or does the bread and wine supernaturally turn into the Lords body and blood?

If you survey the various Christian churches/denominations, you'll find about seven different ways of interpreting the matter. This has been discussed many times here on CF and I'd say that no resolution has been reached.

 

[Bob Crowley]

My two bob's worth, as a Catholic, and former Protestant, is that Christ was God in the flesh, and His word is eternal. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away".

Because He is God, the words that He spoke on this issue are more than mere symbolism. At the last supper He was ushering in a ritual by which we remember Him so often as we meet in the Catholic tradition, but we also partake of His body and blood, in some literal sense. He is always present, and when the Holy Spirit comes upon the "gifts" at the request of the priest, and takes what belongs to Christ and gives it to us, we believe that something supernatural happens. Call it transsubstantion or whatever - something happens.

Just what happens won't be clearly seen until we're in Glory ourselves, and it is clearly shown to us. For now we see through a glass darkly.

But it's more than just symbolism. The Jews knew that, because a lot of them stopped following Christ from that very moment. One of the strict teachings of the Jewish law was that they should not eat flesh with the blood still in it. And here He was telling them to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

If they'd understood it to be merely symbolic, far less offence would have been taken. But they knew full well that He meant it in some sort of literal sense, and their Judaic training forced them to abandon Him at that very point.

These days, whenever I go to a Protestant service, the music might be better, the sermon might be better, there might be more enthusiasm, the greeters at the door might be doing a wonderful job - but something is missing - the Eucharist. And I notice it. Even if they have communion, it is watered down, and seems empty, with all due respect.

For what it is worth, here is a very recent example of a host which seems to miraculously bear witness to becoming heart tissue. And there have been a number of them down the centuries. It's a bit like the "incorruptible" saints - a witness to the fact Christ is alive and well, and working miracles when and how He sees fit.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...oland-has-hallmarks-of-a-eucharistic-miracle/

Photographs of "Incorruptible" saints - a shadow of God's own statement about His own Son - He would not let the Holy One see decay.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...0ahUKEwjxjKaA8ZXNAhXCKZQKHRbRCyEQsAQINA&dpr=1

 

[Goatee]

My two bob's worth, as a Catholic, and former Protestant, is that Christ was God in the flesh, and His word is eternal. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away".

Because He is God, the words that He spoke on this issue are more than mere symbolism. At the last supper He was ushering in a ritual by which we remember Him so often as we meet in the Catholic tradition, but we also partake of His body and blood, in some literal sense. He is always present, and when the Holy Spirit comes upon the "gifts" at the request of the priest, and takes what belongs to Christ and gives it to us, we believe that something supernatural happens. Call it transsubstantion or whatever - something happens.

Just what happens won't be clearly seen until we're in Glory ourselves, and it is clearly shown to us. For now we see through a glass darkly.

But it's more than just symbolism. The Jews knew that, because a lot of them stopped following Christ from that very moment. One of the strict teachings of the Jewish law was that they should not eat flesh with the blood still in it. And here He was telling them to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

If they'd understood it to be merely symbolic, far less offence would have been taken. But they knew full well that He meant it in some sort of literal sense, and their Judaic training forced them to abandon Him at that very point.

These days, whenever I go to a Protestant service, the music might be better, the sermon might be better, there might be more enthusiasm, the greeters at the door might be doing a wonderful job - but something is missing - the Eucharist. And I notice it. Even if they have communion, it is watered down, and seems empty, with all due respect.

For what it is worth, here is a very recent example of a host which seems to miraculously bear witness to becoming heart tissue. And there have been a number of them down the centuries. It's a bit like the "incorruptible" saints - a witness to the fact Christ is alive and well, and working miracles when and how He sees fit.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...oland-has-hallmarks-of-a-eucharistic-miracle/

Photographs of "Incorruptible" saints - a shadow of God's own statement about His own Son - He would not let the Holy One see decay.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...0ahUKEwjxjKaA8ZXNAhXCKZQKHRbRCyEQsAQINA&dpr=1

Excellent post

 

[Albion]

We need also to remember that this isn't a Catholic versus Protestant disagreement.

The "just symbolism" POV is a minority one among the churches that are classified as Protestant. Almost none of the prominent denominations--Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Anglican, or Methodist, for example--teach that the Lord's Supper is only symbolic.

 

[farout]

We need also to remember that this isn't a Catholic versus Protestant disagreement.

The "just symbolism" POV is a minority one among the churches that are classified as Protestant. Almost none of the prominent denominations--Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Anglican, or Methodist, for example--teach that the Lord's Supper is only symbolic.

Excellent post and I appreciate it very much.

 

[farout]

The Israelites in the old testament would to Atone themselves from sin would take a spotless Lamb/bull, the sinner would put his hands on the animal imputing his sin into the animal, in turn taking the lambs innocence to cleanse himself from his unrighteousness. (Atonement sacrifice)

On the cross Jesus became our atonement sacrifice, at the last supper, Jesus said

◄ Matthew 26:28 ►
New International Version
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

He said "this is my body and blood"

◄ John 6:54 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.



My question: is the sacrament symbolic or does the bread and wine supernaturally turn into the Lords body and blood?

Thanks and God bless

I suppose a lot depends upon the teaching of the way you were taught as a child or when you began your journey of faith later on. I was raised a Baptist (not fundamentalist) in a conservative way. So in my understanding od the New Testament Scripture is it is symbolic of the Blood of Christ and the body of Christ. IMO this does not lessen the fact that the vine juice and unleaven wafer is not factually the flesh and blood of jess Christ.

Some who are antichrist's actually have said this is cannibalism ITO, and I can understand their thinking this. The Roman Catholic Denomination do believe the Vine juice and wafer do in fact turn into the real blood and flesh of Christ. I doubt there is anyway to get anyone in the RCC to change their mind about this belief, the same can be said about those who see it as symbolic representation.

Putting these two differences aside, the most important thing is to do this as a remberance of Jesus Christ. The biggest issue I see is how often the Lords Supper is taken. Some do it weekly others monthly, quarterly, and yearly. There is no solid instruction for how often this should be done. There is a warning about taking of the elements unworthy and it comes with sever warnings. There is too a big difference as to what age a person is to be able to partake, as well if the person is a person must be a baptized believer before taking. Also some churches have closed the elements unless you are a member of that church, or it may be open to any believer of Christ.

Can anyone have the Lords supper at home with its family or visiting someone in a hospital, or before going to a conflict in the armed services? The Lords Supper may seem simple but there is a lot of questions that must be choosen by a home Bible Study group or Church or ??????

 

[tz620q]

Some who are antichrist's actually have said this is cannibalism ITO, and I can understand their thinking this. The Roman Catholic Denomination do believe the Vine juice and wafer do in fact turn into the real blood and flesh of Christ. I doubt there is anyway to get anyone in the RCC to change their mind about this belief, the same can be said about those who see it as symbolic representation.

That's true. The Theology of the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Christ is at the center of Catholic belief and practice. To me the Memorialism movement was a logical extension of the anti-clericalism of the Reformation. To truly get rid of clerics required a change of theology from Real Presence with the priest at the center of the consecration to a theology that denied the Real Presence and hence eliminated the need for the priest. So to me there is too much difference in the theology for us to rally around remembrance as a common denominator. This is truly a point where liturgy reflects the core of our beliefs.

 

[Albion]

Unfortunately, the issue has so many variables that it's usually difficult to have a calm discussion.

--All denominations, Catholic or Protestant, believe that there is a memorial quality in the Lord's Supper. No one rejects that aspect of the sacrament/ordinance.

--Most Protestants believe in the Real Presence, as do Catholics, and do not consider it merely a symbol.

--The Roman Catholic position isn't Real Presence per se, but Transubstantiation which holds that the "elements" not only take on the real presence of Christ but are turned into literal flesh and blood. This position is almost unique to the RCC.

--Whether or not the Supper is thought to be a sacrifice of some sort is a belief independent of the above.

--How one describes the differences between the churches, therefore, takes a lot of attention to detail--if accuracy is wanted.

 

[Thursday]

The Israelites in the old testament would to Atone themselves from sin would take a spotless Lamb/bull, the sinner would put his hands on the animal imputing his sin into the animal, in turn taking the lambs innocence to cleanse himself from his unrighteousness. (Atonement sacrifice)

On the cross Jesus became our atonement sacrifice, at the last supper, Jesus said

◄ Matthew 26:28 ►
New International Version
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

He said "this is my body and blood"

◄ John 6:54 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.



My question: is the sacrament symbolic or does the bread and wine supernaturally turn into the Lords body and blood?

Thanks and God bless

There is a supernatural transition.

That's what the apostles taught and that's what all Christians believed for the first 1200 years or so of Christianity.

 

[ScottA]

The Israelites in the old testament would to Atone themselves from sin would take a spotless Lamb/bull, the sinner would put his hands on the animal imputing his sin into the animal, in turn taking the lambs innocence to cleanse himself from his unrighteousness. (Atonement sacrifice)

On the cross Jesus became our atonement sacrifice, at the last supper, Jesus said

◄ Matthew 26:28 ►
New International Version
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

He said "this is my body and blood"

◄ John 6:54 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.



My question: is the sacrament symbolic or does the bread and wine supernaturally turn into the Lords body and blood?

Thanks and God bless

All things come in parables. Mark 4:11

 

[Cappadocious]

Both

 

[Thursday]

The Israelites in the old testament would to Atone themselves from sin would take a spotless Lamb/bull, the sinner would put his hands on the animal imputing his sin into the animal, in turn taking the lambs innocence to cleanse himself from his unrighteousness. (Atonement sacrifice)

On the cross Jesus became our atonement sacrifice, at the last supper, Jesus said

◄ Matthew 26:28 ►
New International Version
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

He said "this is my body and blood"

◄ John 6:54 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.



My question: is the sacrament symbolic or does the bread and wine supernaturally turn into the Lords body and blood?

Thanks and God bless

All Christians believed this was the actual blood and body of Christ for the first 1000 years of Christianity.

The symbolic interpretation is relatively modern and held by a minority of Christian groups.

 

[Albion]

Depends on what is meant by "actual," though. Real, yes...literal and carnal, no.

 

[Thursday]

Depends on what is meant by "actual," though. Real, yes...literal and carnal, no.

Actual, as in the supernatural presence in the physical form of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in the appearance of bread and wine.

 

[Albion]

Actual, as in the supernatural presence in the physical form of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in the appearance of bread and wine.

If you mean Transubstantiation, no, that only became an official doctrine in the 13th century and had only been talked about from several centuries prior to that. Real Presence, by contrast, was a belief from the first century onward.

 

[tz620q]

If you mean Transubstantiation, no, that only became an official doctrine in the 13th century and had only been talked about from several centuries prior to that. Real Presence, by contrast, was a belief from the first century onward.

Real Presence as a mysterious, undefined what? How can we say that we truly believe in something that is purely a mystery? Don't we all need at least a little definition for what it is and what it isn't? Transubstantiation is an attempt to do just that. So this leaves people who would deny transubstantiation with two alternatives, either state that it is just a mystery and all attempts at definition are wrong because they attempt to define the undefinable or an alternative definition. I actually find the Orthodox viewpoint of leaving it as a mystery only bounded by Christ's words, "This is my body." a better alternative than to deny transubstantiation while proposing an alternative definition that is less satisfying.

 

[Goatee]

Transubstantiation is a word. All Catholics know that Jesus's body and blood is there in the Eucharist. It is very real!

FAITH. BELIEF. LOVE.............We know what Jesus meant when he said Eat my Body and Drink my Blood. Catholics know how important this is.