Understanding The Eucharist

Do you believe in the Eucharist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • No

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • No sure

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Total voters
    12

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,788
Pacific Northwest
✟728,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I like your description of what the Eucharist means. But surely the Bible is often speaking in very symbolic/metaphoric/poetic/mythic language?

For example, I don't think Genesis necessarily mean that that World was created in 6 literal days. I think the author wrote in a poetic language. And Jesus clearly didn't mean he was a door, or a tree and we the branches in a literal sense. But in a metaphorical sense it is true spiritually and therefore real. Jesus really is the door, the way and life in which we enter. And I just interpret John 6 the same way, because it just seem like all the rest of his spiritual teachings. It just seem absurd to me, that one has to believe that we eat Jesus. As you say not in a literal sense, in that it's his bloody flesh or his ear. But you still say it's his flesh, so in that way I can't see how you escape interpreting it in a literal sense? Something's in the Bible are mysteries, and perhaps I should leave it at that.

So when Jesus is saying He is a door. Do you take it at same face value as the bread you eat is Jesus?

It seem natural to me, that when He said this is my flesh, in the context of those thousand hungry people, and His reference to the Mana God gave in the dessert, He is saying that the bread He gives will never make you hunger again like real food. His Word, Faith in Him, His sacrifice on the cross (his flesh and blood) is what He is trying to communicate to the people, and us.

Again, I'm still trying to learn so I will think about what you said above.

- Mathias

I agree with you, Scripture employs a lot of different kinds of language, including mythological language.

When it comes to statements like, "I am the door" or "I am the true vine", these are similes, Jesus compares Himself to a door, to a vine, etc.

This is also true when Jesus calls Himself the bread and water of life.

But at the Last Supper Jesus took bread, broke it and didn't say, "I am the bread broken for you", He takes that bread and says, "This is My body".

Jesus never took a door and said, "This [door] is Me", He didn't point to a vine and say "This [vine] is Me". But He did take bread and say "This is My body" and He took wine and said, "This is My blood".

That's the difference. And it's one that has always been understood in Christianity.

In 1 Corinthians ch. 10 Paul writes that by the bread and wine we are partaking of Jesus' body and blood (1 Corinthians 10:16), and in this way we are partaking of Christ's perfect sacrifice (1 Corinthians 10:18).

And here is what St. Ignatius, a student of John the Apostle and who succeeded Peter and Paul as chief pastor of the Church in Antioch, has to say,

"They [the heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 7, (circa 107 AD)

Ignatius is talking about certain heretics who existed at the time who denied Christ was truly flesh and blood, who suffered death, and raised up bodily. The heretics in question were probably Docetists, the Docetism was an early heresy that denies Jesus came in the flesh (it's what is being condemned by St. John in his epistles when he talks about "antichrists" who are claiming Jesus did not come in the flesh). These early heretics denied Christ's body, and so they rejected His Supper.

That the Lord's Supper is the real body and blood of Jesus has simply always been what Christians have believed, from the time of the Apostles until the present day.

Until the Protestant Reformation the only ones who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist were out-and-out heretics, like the Docetists of old. And even in the Reformation, the Evangelical Reformers (Luther and co.) all explicitly confessed what had always been believed: This is the real and true body and blood of Jesus.

Rejection of this only really begins with Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss reformer whose theology was a major contributor to the Reformed branch of Protestantism.

The reason why so many Protestants today don't believe in the Real Presence is because they inherited the doctrines of Zwingli; hence we term this view Zwinglianism. Zwinglianism teaches that the Eucharist is a purely symbolic memorial.

Which is why this isn't a Catholic vs Protestant issue. It's an all of Christianity vs. Zwinglianism issue.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,788
Pacific Northwest
✟728,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Wonder why Paul focused on Jesus sacrificial death in the NT sacrificial meal instead of his Lordship. . .

Again, this is a dichotomy that I simply don't understand. You are making a dichotomy between Jesus' death and His Lordship. Except that the Christian faith is in the Crucified Lord.

Jesus didn't become Lord when He rose from the dead.
The Lord hung from the tree.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Maniel

Active Member
Jul 26, 2019
161
114
32
Aarhus
✟22,672.00
Country
Denmark
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I agree with you, Scripture employs a lot of different kinds of language, including mythological language.

When it comes to statements like, "I am the door" or "I am the true vine", these are similes, Jesus compares Himself to a door, to a vine, etc.

This is also true when Jesus calls Himself the bread and water of life.

But at the Last Supper Jesus took bread, broke it and didn't say, "I am the bread broken for you", He takes that bread and says, "This is My body".

Jesus never took a door and said, "This [door] is Me", He didn't point to a vine and say "This [vine] is Me". But He did take bread and say "This is My body" and He took wine and said, "This is My blood".

That's the difference. And it's one that has always been understood in Christianity.

In 1 Corinthians ch. 10 Paul writes that by the bread and wine we are partaking of Jesus' body and blood (1 Corinthians 10:16), and in this way we are partaking of Christ's perfect sacrifice (1 Corinthians 10:18).

And here is what St. Ignatius, a student of John the Apostle and who succeeded Peter and Paul as chief pastor of the Church in Antioch, has to say,

"They [the heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 7, (circa 107 AD)

Ignatius is talking about certain heretics who existed at the time who denied Christ was truly flesh and blood, who suffered death, and raised up bodily. The heretics in question were probably Docetists, the Docetism was an early heresy that denies Jesus came in the flesh (it's what is being condemned by St. John in his epistles when he talks about "antichrists" who are claiming Jesus did not come in the flesh). These early heretics denied Christ's body, and so they rejected His Supper.

That the Lord's Supper is the real body and blood of Jesus has simply always been what Christians have believed, from the time of the Apostles until the present day.

Until the Protestant Reformation the only ones who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist were out-and-out heretics, like the Docetists of old. And even in the Reformation, the Evangelical Reformers (Luther and co.) all explicitly confessed what had always been believed: This is the real and true body and blood of Jesus.

Rejection of this only really begins with Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss reformer whose theology was a major contributor to the Reformed branch of Protestantism.

The reason why so many Protestants today don't believe in the Real Presence is because they inherited the doctrines of Zwingli; hence we term this view Zwinglianism. Zwinglianism teaches that the Eucharist is a purely symbolic memorial.

Which is why this isn't a Catholic vs Protestant issue. It's all of Christianity vs. Zwinglianism issue.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you once again for your reply

In saying it is his flesh, is one thereby referring to Jesus death on the cross and what it means? Like, I eat the bread which is Jesus body, because He gave it up on the cross so we could live. So we are partaking in the sacrifice He once made, while He is present? This would make more sense to me.

Even with people such as Luther and the Church Fathers, by their language could it still be that they believe it to be in a spiritual sense, rather than to be taken in such terms? Like for example, I read that Jesus is the door. And I tell other people, Jesus is the door you must enter. So I refer to what Jesus said while still believing in the metaphorical truth.

If you read gotquestions you can read their whole thing in order, which is where some of my counter-arguments come from.

There they state:"When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

What do you think of Young Earth creationism? There are big disputes in the Christian community on this issue, because some believe to interpret it at face value.

I read somewhere, that when the church fathers was dealing with Docetism, they were defending the view that Jesus is both equal Man and God, flesh and spirit. Thus describing The Eucharist the way they did.

In other places the early church used language like this:

Clement of Alexandria: “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Origen: “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).


Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340):

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,788
Pacific Northwest
✟728,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Thank you once again for your reply

In saying it is his flesh, is one thereby referring to Jesus death on the cross and what it means? Like, I eat the bread which is Jesus body, because He gave it up on the cross so we could live. So we are partaking in the sacrifice He once made, while He is present? This would make more sense to me.

Even with people such as Luther and the Church Fathers, by their language could it still be that they believe it to be in a spiritual sense, rather than to be taken in such terms? Like for example, I read that Jesus is the door. And I tell other people, Jesus is the door you must enter. So I refer to what Jesus said while still believing in the metaphorical truth.

If you read gotquestions you can read their whole thing in order, which is where some of my counter-arguments come from.

There they state:"When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

What do you think of Young Earth creationism? There are big disputes in the Christian community on this issue, because some believe to interpret it at face value.

I read somewhere, that when the church fathers was dealing with Docetism, they were defending the view that Jesus is both equal Man and God, flesh and spirit. Thus describing The Eucharist the way they did.

In other places the early church used language like this:

Clement of Alexandria: “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Origen: “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).


Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340):

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)

The elements are a symbol, but they are not symbolic. Rather the symbol here "contains" the reality it conveys.

In the same way that the water of Holy Baptism is a symbol, but is a living, active, powerful symbol that actually accomplishes and is what it conveys.

For this reason we can read that Jesus says that the new birth is of "water and the Spirit" (John 3:5), so that the one who is baptized has indeed been born again, regenerated (see Titus 3:5).

Are we glorifying mere water? No, we are glorifying God's grace and power attached to the water by His word (see Ephesians 5:26).

In the same way do not glorify bread and wine, but the body and the blood; which is truly and really received "in, with, and under" the symbols.

The symbol is not symbolism; the symbol is the "sign and seal" to which God's word is connected. What word is connected with the bread and wine? "This is My body, broken for you" and "This is My blood of the New Covenant poured out for many".

When a king places his wax seal on letter it is stamped with the power and authority of the one who seals his authority and power. The seal is a symbol, but it actually accomplishes what it represents: The word of the king is absolute.

In the same way the Sacraments are God's seal, the symbol of His grace, His word and power that makes water more than mere water, and bread and wine more than mere bread and wine: These are what God proclaims them to be, and they accomplish what God sets them out to accomplish.

And so what happens when we partake of the Lord's Supper is nothing other than this: We receive the very real, the very true, the very actual body and blood of Jesus.

It's not "literal" in a "carnal" sense; neither is it "spiritual" in some sort of esoteric or mystical sense. Rather it is, in its objective fact, external and true, the body and blood of Jesus; but how this can be is unknown and unknowable.

And thus we confess simply: It is what it is.

Thus when we see the ancient fathers speak in this language of sign, symbol, and seal we would be in error to think they mean "symbolic" or "metaphor"; rather they mean that the external thing truly and really contains what the word of God says of them: Baptism is new birth, the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ broken and shed for us. They are what they are by the word of God, and thus they accomplish what they are given for. Since God's word never returns to Him void, but does what He sets it to accomplish (Isaiah 55:11).

Is it spiritual? Of course, because the Holy Spirit is at work here. But it is not "spiritual" in the sense of being non-physical. See, for example, what the Apostle says of the resurrection of the body in 1 Corinthians 15, that our bodies are sown "soulish bodies" but raised "spiritual bodies", the future "spiritual body" is not non-physical, but physical, solid flesh and bone and bodily matter. What makes the body in the resurrection spiritual is that our bodily life is transformed by the power of God, it is the quickening power of the Holy Spirit that will give life to our mortal bodies in the resurrection (Romans 8:11).

We receive the "literal" body and blood of Jesus, not in a carnal "Capernaitic" sense; but in the Christian sense: This is Christ's body and blood, in a way that we simply do not understand. But it really is what Jesus says it really is: It's Him.

It's physical, but not carnal.
It's spiritual, but not esoteric.

Edit to add: The reason why it may sound weird to say something is a symbol but not symbolic is because the meaning of the word "symbol" has changed. In its original sense it literally means "thrown together with" from the Greek σύμβολον (symbolon). The thing that is cast together with something else; the bread and wine are "symbols" because this bread and wine is "with" the body and the blood. This is an important nuance that needs to be understood to properly understand what is meant by the use of "symbol" in the historic Christian meaning in regard to the Sacraments.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Maniel

Active Member
Jul 26, 2019
161
114
32
Aarhus
✟22,672.00
Country
Denmark
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The elements are a symbol, but they are not symbolic. Rather the symbol here "contains" the reality it conveys.

In the same way that the water of Holy Baptism is a symbol, but is a living, active, powerful symbol that actually accomplishes and is what it conveys.

For this reason we can read that Jesus says that the new birth is of "water and the Spirit" (John 3:5), so that the one who is baptized has indeed been born again, regenerated (see Titus 3:5).

Are we glorifying mere water? No, we are glorifying God's grace and power attached to the water by His word (see Ephesians 5:26).

In the same way do not glorify bread and wine, but the body and the blood; which is truly and really received "in, with, and under" the symbols.

The symbol is not symbolism; the symbol is the "sign and seal" to which God's word is connected. What word is connected with the bread and wine? "This is My body, broken for you" and "This is My blood of the New Covenant poured out for many".

When a king places his wax seal on letter it is stamped with the power and authority of the one who seals his authority and power. The seal is a symbol, but it actually accomplishes what it represents: The word of the king is absolute.

In the same way the Sacraments are God's seal, the symbol of His grace, His word and power that makes water more than mere water, and bread and wine more than mere bread and wine: These are what God proclaims them to be, and they accomplish what God sets them out to accomplish.

And so what happens when we partake of the Lord's Supper is nothing other than this: We receive the very real, the very true, the very actual body and blood of Jesus.

It's not "literal" in a "carnal" sense; neither is it "spiritual" in some sort of esoteric or mystical sense. Rather it is, in its objective fact, external and true, the body and blood of Jesus; but how this can be is unknown and unknowable.

And thus we confess simply: It is what it is.

Thus when we see the ancient fathers speak in this language of sign, symbol, and seal we would be in error to think they mean "symbolic" or "metaphor"; rather they mean that the external thing truly and really contains what the word of God says of them: Baptism is new birth, the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ broken and shed for us. They are what they are by the word of God, and thus they accomplish what they are given for. Since God's word never returns to Him void, but does what He sets it to accomplish (Isaiah 55:11).

Is it spiritual? Of course, because the Holy Spirit is at work here. But it is not "spiritual" in the sense of being non-physical. See, for example, what the Apostle says of the resurrection of the body in 1 Corinthians 15, that our bodies are sown "soulish bodies" but raised "spiritual bodies", the future "spiritual body" is not non-physical, but physical, solid flesh and bone and bodily matter. What makes the body in the resurrection spiritual is that our bodily life is transformed by the power of God, it is the quickening power of the Holy Spirit that will give life to our mortal bodies in the resurrection (Romans 8:11).

We receive the "literal" body and blood of Jesus, not in a carnal "Capernaitic" sense; but in the Christian sense: This is Christ's body and blood, in a way that we simply do not understand. But it really is what Jesus says it really is: It's Him.

It's physical, but not carnal.
It's spiritual, but not esoteric.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for the qualification. I think we're in agreement here. When I say symbolic, I'm saying it to be a symbol in a true sense. This is just the way I understand it, because I don't speak the same, much more precise theological language you do I guess. Like Lewis and Tolkien who referred to Christianity as The True Myth, without actually believing it as something not true. And so I believe in The Eucharist I guess, as something that physical happened, that Jesus gave himself for us in the flesh. And The Eucharist make this event present for us to partake? I will have to think more on this, but what you just said makes sense to me. Thank you!
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Tigger45
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I hear your point, but let's leave John 6 aside in this argument.
Leave aside the basis for the doctrine?

What kind of explanation is that?
The rest of what we have to consult, such as the Scripture accounts of the Last Supper and the first century interpretation of the church, are convincing enough. But what is believed isn't exactly literal.
No church believes that when you commune, you are eating the foot that was nailed to the cross, for example.
I think you are mistaken regarding no church believing the bread is the actual sacrificed body of Christ that hung on the cross, just as the OT sacrificial meals were of the actual sacrificed body that was laid on the altar.
With millions of Eucharists taking place around the world every week and at the same time, this also says that the observance does not involve "literal flesh." Literally speaking, flesh has blood, for example.
Sacrificed flesh does not have blood, that's the whole point--death.

And the NT presents the Lord's Supper as the sacrificial meal (as in the OT) of the sacrificed flesh of Christ, and "millions of Supper's taking place around the world every week and at the same time" cannot be a logistical problem in light of the fact that the larger logistical problem of bread being made into his actual sacrificed body isn't a problem.
The Roman Catholic Church "solves" that problem by stipulating that all the "accidents," the characteristics of the elements, remain that of bread and wine although you are supposed to believe it is Christ's real flesh and blood instead. But even if that were so and even if there were evidence of such a belief from the Apostolic age, it would still not be exactly Christ's body.
I think that is exactly what Jesus meant in John 6 and at the Last Supper, and excluding John 6 from understanding the nature of the Lord's Supper is ludicrous.
What you're dealing with is a mystery, something transcendent.
That is the pagan use of "mystery," which is not the NT use of "mystery," which Paul radically changes by always combining it with words such as "disclosed" (Colossians 1:26), "made known" (Ephesians 1:9), "make plain" (Ephesians 3:9), or "revelation" (Romans 16:25).
In the NT, a mystery is not something that can't be understood, it is simply something understandable which has never before been revealed (Romans 16:25-26; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Ephesians 1:9;
2 Thessalonians 2:7
; 1 Timothy 3:9);
e.g., 1 Corinthians 2:7-10; Ephesians 3:3-6; 1 Corinthians 15:51; Romans 11:25.

The Lord's Supper does not "transcend" NT understanding of it in 1 Corinthians 10:16-18,
1 Corinthians 11:26.
Yes, it includes the real presence of Christ,
However, the NT does not present the Lord's Supper to be a real presence, rather it presents it to be a partaking of the altar (1 Corinthians 10:16-18), of the once-for-all sacrifice (death) for the remission of sin (1 Corinthians 11:26).
and is not just symbolic. But it is really Christ in a supernatural way.
Would that not give the lie to it not being literal, above?
That fact doesn't diminish the wondrous and intimate nature of the sacrament.
How does that intimacy differ from Christ actually being in me already (John 17:23). . .not to mention another reason the NT presents no duplication of such in the Lord's Supper?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Leave aside the basis for the doctrine?
John 6, however one sees it, definitely is not "the basis" for the doctrine.

I think you are mistaken regarding no church believing the bread is the actual sacrificed body of Christ that hung on the cross...
Well, if you are thinking that way, you must have a few churches in mind. Which ones would those be?

Sacrificed flesh does not have blood, that's the whole point--death.
You don't think that a dead body has veins, dried blood, fingernails, and etc.?

And the NT presents the Lord's Supper as the sacrificial meal (as in the OT) of the sacrificed flesh of Christ, and "millions of Supper's taking place around the world every week and at the same time" cannot be a logistical problem in light of the fact that the larger logistical problem of bread being made into his actual sacrificed body isn't a problem.
Yeah, but you're circumventing the explanation I gave. And the Eucharist isn't believed to be a new sacrifice in any case.

However, the NT does not present the Lord's Supper to be a real presence,
Sure it does. If we take Christ's words at face value, there isn't any denying it.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
John 6, however one sees it, definitely is not "the basis" for the doctrine.
Well, if you are thinking that way, you must have a few churches in mind. Which ones would those be?
You don't think that a dead body has veins, dried blood, fingernails, and etc.?
Yeah, but you're circumventing the explanation I gave. And the Eucharist isn't believed to be a new sacrifice in any case.
Sure it does. If we take Christ's words at face value, there isn't any denying it.
John 6, however one sees it, definitely is not "the basis" for the doctrine.
Well, if you are thinking that way, you must have a few churches in mind. Which ones would those be?
You said in the Catholic church you are supposed to believe the bread and wine are Christ's flesh and blood.
You don't think that a dead body has veins, dried blood, fingernails, and etc.?
The bodies of the sacrifices were drained of blood before putting them on the altar. They had no blood.
Yeah, but you're circumventing the explanation I gave.
That the Lord's Supper doesn't involve literal flesh doesn't explain anything.
And the Eucharist isn't believed to be a new sacrifice in any case.
Strawman. . .I didn't say it was.
Sure it does. If we take Christ's words at face value, there isn't any denying it.
Actually, the NT understands Christ's words to be a partaking of the altar (1 Corinthians 10:16-18),
of the once-for-all sacrifice (death) for the remission of sin (1 Corinthians 11:26).

There's a lot you did not address in my post.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Strawman. . .
I was explaining to our inquirer what the Eucharist is all about. That has nothing to do with any "strawman argument."

There's a lot you did not address in my post.
I wanted to stay on topic and not go off onto other matters. As for John 6, it is often cited by people (including our inquirer's friends, apparently) but it is not the "basis" (as you claimed) of the traditional understanding of the nature of the Eucharist, nor is John 6 the primary "proof text" used by Catholics when defending their view of the sacrament.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I was explaining to our inquirer what the Eucharist is all about. That has nothing to do with any "strawman argument."
Your response to me in your post to me was,
"And the Eucharist isn't believed to be a new sacrifice in any case."
I made no such statement, so your response to me is a strawman.
I wanted to stay on topic and not go off onto other matters.
My entire post (#66) was on topic, everything in it addressing something you stated regarding the meaning of the Lord's Supper.
As for John 6, it is often cited by people (including our inquirer's friends, apparently) but it is not the "basis" (as you claimed) of the traditional understanding of the nature of the Eucharist, nor is John 6 the primary "proof text" used by Catholics when defending their view of the sacrament.
I'm talking about the Biblical understanding as shown in the NT.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Your response to me in your post to me was,
"And the Eucharist isn't believed to be a new sacrifice in any case."
I made no such statement, so your response to me is a strawman.

My entire post (#66) was on topic, everything in it addressing something you stated regarding the meaning of the Lord's Supper.

I'm talking about the Biblical understanding based on the NT.

Some people just argue for the sake of arguing, and if there's nothing about which to argue, they'll try to find one.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Your response to me in your post to me was,
"And the Eucharist isn't believed to be a new sacrifice in any case."
I made no such statement, so your response to me is a strawman.
My entire post (#66) was on topic, everything in it addressing something you stated regarding the meaning of the Lord's Supper
I'm talking about the Biblical understanding based on the NT.

Agreed. . .

Your explanation was demonstrated to lack Biblical support, which you do not want to address.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟817,053.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Agreed. . .

Your explanation was demonstrated to lack Biblical support, which you do not want to address.
Actually, no. Your hard heartedness makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion, and closes your mind to sound Biblical theology.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Actually, no. Your hard heartedness
Is that what you think of the OT sacrificial system ordered by God, under which Jesus died, and on which the Lord's Supper was patterned, in its sacrificial meal of the flesh that was sacrificed?
makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion, and closes your mind to sound Biblical theology.
You think my mind is closed to 1 Corinthians 10:16-18 and 1 Corinthians 11:26, or

you think 1 Corinthians 10:16-18 and 1 Corinthians 11:26 are not sound theology, or

you think I am getting 1 Corinthians 10:16-18 and 1 Corinthians 11:26 wrong, or

you think I am missing something else besides 1 Corinthians 10:16-18 and 1 Corinthians 11:26?

Please demonstrate the Biblical theology that would change what I have presented.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Edit to add: The reason why it may sound weird to say something is a symbol but not symbolic is because the meaning of the word "symbol" has changed. In its original sense it literally means "thrown together with" from the Greek σύμβολον (symbolon). The thing that is cast together with something else; the bread and wine are "symbols" because this bread and wine is "with" the body and the blood. This is an important nuance that needs to be understood to properly understand what is meant by the use of "symbol" in the historic Christian meaning in regard to the Sacraments.

-CryptoLutheran

On a related note, the Nicene Creed, which most churches use, if not on a regular basis, still is the general statement that defines the Trinity, in Greek is called the "Symbol of Faith". So as ViaCrusis says, symbolic in Greek is a reality that has been lost in modern English.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
On a related note, the Nicene Creed, which most churches use, if not on a regular basis, still is the general statement that defines the Trinity, in Greek is called the "Symbol of Faith". So as ViaCrusis says, symbolic in Greek is a reality that has been lost in modern English.
That would be "emblem," the statement defining the Trinity would be the "Emblem of Faith."

Emblem is a visible sign of something invisible. The bread is the visible sign of the invisible sacrificed flesh, which means the bread is the sacrificed flesh, just invisible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm having a discussion with my catholic friend. He is trying to persuade me that
The Eucharist is true
. As the protestant I am I feel like challenging him on that,
Yes, "the eucharist is true," but not in the way your friend thinks it is.

Jesus lived and died under the OT sacrificial laws which he came to fulfill, and did, including establishing a NT sacrificial meal on the flesh of the sacrifice as in the OT sacrificial meal on the flesh of the sacrifice. Therefore:

I. The NT presents the Lord's Supper as a proclamation of the Lord's death until he comes
(1 Corinthians 11:26) and
the wine as a cup of blessing (1 Corinthians 10:16), as in Luke 9:16.

It is the NT sacrificial meal--patterned on the OT sacrificial meal where the offerer ate a part of the sacrificed flesh thereby participating in the benefits of the sacrifice--where we likewise eat of the actual sacrificed flesh of Christ, and in the cup of thanksgiving/blessing we participate in the actual sacrificed blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16).

II. In addition, the NT teaches that Christ's sacrifice was offered once for all (Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:28). There is, therefore, no re-offering in any form, it's work was completed on Calvary, is totally sufficient, and suffers no additions, neither of our "works" of faith nor in our worhsip.

III. Likewise, the NT does not present the Lord's Supper as the "real presence" of Jesus, for the meal is a partaking of the sacrifice, as in the OT, which by definition must be dead.
Likewise, the wine is his poured-out blood on the ground (death).
There is no living "real presence" of Jesus in the Lord's Supper, which is the NT sacrificial meal on the actual sacrificed flesh.

Rather, the NT presents the real presence of Jesus within the born again (John 17:23), not in the Lord's Supper.

The NT teaching on the Lord's Supper does not allow for a "real presence" of Jesus, which has already been provided within us (John 17:23).

Why is within us not sufficient, that we must improve upon it with our own contra-Biblical invention?

There is no need for improvement on the NT's location of the "real presence."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Yes, "the eucharist is true," but not in the way your friend thinks it is.

I. The NT presents the Lord's Supper as a proclamation of the Lord's death until he comes
(1 Corinthians 11:26) and
the wine as a cup of blessing (1 Corinthians 10:16), as in Luke 9:16.
What is the reason that the Supper can be those things--as we see in the Bible--but absolutely not the rest of what Christ said it was about--also according to the Bible?

II. In addition, the NT teaches that Christ's sacrifice was offered once for all (Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:28). There is, therefore, no re-offering in any form, it's work was completed on Calvary, is totally sufficient, and suffers no additions, neither of our "works" of faith nor in our worhsip.
I cannot think of any Christian church or denomination that thinks celebrating the Eucharist is a re-sacrificing of Christ. Which ones did you have in mind?

The rest of the post is simply what you would like the facts to be, so that's why I am not commenting on them here.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Clare73 said:
Jesus lived and died under the OT sacrificial laws which he came to fulfill, and did, including establishing a NT sacrificial meal on the flesh of the sacrifice as in the OT sacrificial meal on the flesh of the sacrifice. Therefore:
I. The NT presents the Lord's Supper as a proclamation of the Lord's death until he comes
(1 Corinthians 11:26) and
the wine as a cup of blessing (1 Corinthians 10:16), as in Luke 9:16.
It is the NT sacrificial meal--patterned on the OT sacrificial meal where the offerer ate a part of the sacrificed flesh thereby participating in the benefits of the sacrifice--where we likewise eat of the actual sacrificed flesh of Christ, and in the cup of thanksgiving/blessing we participate in the actual sacrificed blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16).

II. In addition, the NT teaches that Christ's sacrifice was offered once for all (Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:28). There is, therefore, no re-offering in any form, it's work was completed on Calvary, is totally sufficient, and suffers no additions, neither of our "works" of faith nor in our worhsip.

III. Likewise, the NT does not present the Lord's Supper as the "real presence" of Jesus, for the meal is a partaking of the sacrifice, as in the OT, which by definition must be dead.
Likewise, the wine is his poured-out blood on the ground (death).
There is no living "real presence" of Jesus in the Lord's Supper, which is the NT sacrificial meal on the actual sacrificed flesh.

Rather, the NT presents the real presence of Jesus within the born again (John 17:23), not in the Lord's Supper.

The NT teaching on the Lord's Supper does not allow for a "real presence" of Jesus, which has already been provided within us (John 17:23).

Why is within us not sufficient, that we must improve upon it with our own contra-Biblical invention?

There is no need for improvement on the NT's location of the "real presence."
What is the reason that the Supper can be those things--as we see in the Bible--but absolutely not the rest of what Christ said it was about--also according to the Bible?
Non-specific curtain.

Present a specific Biblical demonstration of your point which would change what I have presented.
I cannot think of any Christian church or denomination that thinks celebrating the Eucharist is a re-sacrificing of Christ. Which ones did you have in mind?
Previously addressed.
The rest of the post is simply what you would like the facts to be, so that's why I am not commenting on them here.
They are the Biblical facts of Paul's statement that "the Lord's Supper is a proclamation of the Lord's death until he comes."
They are the Biblical facts regarding the OT sacrificial system which Jesus came to fulfill, and did, including establishing a NT sacrificial meal correspondending to the OT sacrificial meal.
They are the Biblical facts ignored in your explanation of the Lord's Supper, and presented in
post #77, quoted above.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Non-specific curtain.

Present a specific Biblical demonstration of your point which would change what I have presented.
Christ said that the meal he was instituting at the event we call the Last Supper was his body and his blood. Not that the bread and wine represented them. What's more, he went on to say that it (his blood) was going to be shed (and we know of the events that followed shortly afterwards), so we know that his meaning cannot be that he was talking about wine.
 
Upvote 0