Communion - Symbolic or Real?

[Full O Beans]

Post it then.

Just scroll up and you'll see them.

 

[Lamb]

Just scroll up and you'll see them.

Your posts should be filled with proof and back up or people will assume you don't know what you're talking about. Post scripture or it's not worth talking to you.

 

[Full O Beans]

Your posts should be filled with proof and back up or people will assume you don't know what you're talking about. Post scripture or it's not worth talking to you.

I don't worry about people's assumptions. Please post scripture, yourself, dear.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus and Paul spoke truth. Their sincerity is not to be questioned. What is, is the hearts and minds of men who created such a nonsensical idea as transubstantiation.

See post 35. The verbatim, direct words are there. In black-and-white.


Again, you seem to be assuming there are only two views: the two invented in the 16th Century that both assume that Jesus and Paul didn't mean the words they used. You CERTAINLY can agree with that assumption - and thus support one of those views based on that! Of course. And yes, support it with verbatim words found in the readings (rather than words NOT there). But, I'm just adding, not all share that assumption so not all accept EITHER of those 16th Century views.... there IS another view based on the premise that Jesus and Paul DID mean those exact words - the black and white ones on the page.





.

 

[Full O Beans]

See post 35. The verbatim, direct words are there. In black-and-white.

Jesus was teaching that the wine and the bread represents His blood and broken body. Simple...but religion likes to dress it up and change it, not satisfied with simple truth.

 

[Stravinsk]

Symbolic:

Reason 1: The Law forbade eating substances that had blood in it. This is why the Jews took offense when they first heard Messiah teaching that they must "eat his flesh and drink his blood" (John 6:60). They did not understand that He was speaking symbolically, just as, in the very verses preceding, He was speaking symbolically about the manna that came down from heaven (John 6:41-52). There were not thousands of little Jesus morsels falling from heaven, it was bread - but He is identifying Himself with it to make a point and link it symbolically.

How we know it is symbolic (besides the obvious linking above) - because Messiah says it is so: John 6: 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

How can the flesh "count for nothing" if He is in fact talking about eating His flesh as a requirement for life? The only reasonable explanation is that He is linking them by symbolism and it is not meant to be taken literally.

As an aside, there is a reason vrs 64 and 65 are included here. When did the betrayer betray Him and when did Satan enter Judas Iscariot? Last supper. It is linked to this.

Reason 2: The Law prohibits eating animals sacrificed to idols. When one breaks this law and eats the animal - they are not actually eating the idol it was sacrificed to - but they are eating the animal that has been tied to the idol in the sacrificial ritual.

The reason this law is in place is that it is a direct robbery and mockery of Christian communion (and passover). No one is eating an idol, and no one is eating Christ - but it is the tie to the idol or to Christ through remembering Him that makes it either a detestable practice or a holy one.

If all this is too confusing - just go back to remembering that if it is literal and not symbolic only - then little christ's were falling from heaven to feed the Israelites masquerading as manna.

 

[Alithis]

Jesus and Paul spoke truth. Their sincerity is not to be questioned. What is, is the hearts and minds of men who created such a nonsensical idea as transubstantiation.

what really bore me is this constant referring to what some commentary by some long gone person whom i have never heard of said -as if that some how gives weight that over rides the scripture .
i say ,,get into the present.
i partake of communion -it doesnt change into flesh when iu eat it . and that takes nothing away from its meaning .

 

[Full O Beans]

what really bore me is this constant referring to what some commentary by some long gone person whom i have never heard of said -as if that some how gives weight that over rides the scripture .
i say ,,get into the present.
i partake of communion -it doesnt change into flesh when iu eat it . and that takes nothing away from its meaning .

Yep.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Explain this to me then please, I visited a Catholic church a few times and I am a Christian but was not allowed to take communion and the explanation that was given was because of this very belief which of course I do not hold, I believe symbolic rather than actual change. Now I thought as a Christian I would be welcome to partake of communion in any church that calls itself Christian, so how does this line up with what you are saying?

Catholics practise close communion by which is meant that only those who share the Catholic Faith and specifically the Catholic teaching on the holy Eucharist ought to partake. Saint Paul explains it thus: Therefore anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to examine himself and only then eat of the bread or drink from the cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognising the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. That is why many of you are weak and ill and a good number have died. If we were critical of ourselves we would not be condemned, but when we are judged by the Lord, we are corrected by the Lord to save us from being condemned along with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:27-32)

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

So "IS" (the exclusive, sole, singular word used by Jesus and Paul) is dumped. And replaced - dogmatically - with a "scholastic" term...

No, 'is' remains in the apostolic traditions and transubstantiation is the scholastic term used to designate the unique change of the Eucharistic bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The change is unique insofar as it occurs in no other sacrament and it not common in nature; specifically bread is not the body of Christ and wine is not the blood of Christ without the sacramental words of consecration and they become the body and blood of the Lord only when consecrated. You seem to think that your point was 'proved' but how can that be when you claimed that the word transubstantiation was avoided like the plague and there it is in the CCC for all to see?

 

[psalms 91]

Catholics practise close communion by which is meant that only those who share the Catholic Faith and specifically the Catholic teaching on the holy Eucharist ought to partake. Saint Paul explains it thus: Therefore anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to examine himself and only then eat of the bread or drink from the cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognising the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. That is why many of you are weak and ill and a good number have died. If we were critical of ourselves we would not be condemned, but when we are judged by the Lord, we are corrected by the Lord to save us from being condemned along with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:27-32)

That does not say exclude your brothers and sisters at all, in my earlier post I showed what discerning meant and it is not we are exclusive and can withhold from other christyians

 

[MoreCoffee]

That does not say exclude your brothers and sisters at all, in my earlier post I showed what discerning meant and it is not we are exclusive and can withhold from other Christians

Anybody can come and claim this or that about themselves and we will not know if their claims are true or not so we rely on the good conduct of visitors who are not Catholics to refrain from coming forward to receive communion.

 

[psalms 91]

Anybody can come and claim this or that about themselves and we will not know if their claims are true or not so we rely on the good conduct of visitors who are not Catholics to refrain from coming forward to receive communion.

Which I did but it left a sour taste in my mouth from a denom thta claims to be christian

 

[popsthebuilder]

I must admit, I went into a Catholic church and participated in the service by invitation from a member. I was deeply bothered by the tythe process and the communion.

The fact that the universal church claims sole ownership of the rights to GOD is quite disheartening as well. Who but man has set themselves up in lofty stations presiding over all the faithful of GOD? What right do they have? By my discernment Catholics are often quite greedy and not willing to help any that aren't. Catholic which is ridiculous. As if any man is greater than another. As if the teachings of Christ say to exclude the faithful as opposed to helping one another in Faith. Perhaps it's a good thing they seperate themselves from the body of Christ. Through observation of some of their traditions and their general demeanor you can tell what fruits they bring forth; generally, division, prejudice, aragance, and greed. I'm not bashing Catholics. Just noting what I have witnessed in the past.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Josiah]

This thread is about WHAT is received.
There's another thread about being a GUEST in another's church where Communion is being celebrated.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus was teaching that the wine and the bread represents His blood and broken body. Simple...but religion likes to dress it up and change it, not satisfied with simple truth.

Would you please underline and/or embolden the word "represent" in the texts?

 

[Josiah]

.


Since the subject isn't getting addressed, let's try this:


Here are the Scriptures. Verbatim. Direct. Black-and-white:


Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom."


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."



Embolden the following words IN THE TEXTS ABOVE .... and count how many times each of these words appear in the texts above:


Is

Body

Blood

Bread

Wine/cup/fruit of the vine

Change

Represent

Symbol

Not

Seems

Transubstantiation

Accidents

Species

Appearance



Just underline or embolden each of these specific words as they appear in the two sets of Scripture above. Easy.
Then note how many times each one of these words so appears.
That might advance the discussion.




Thanks!


- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

Ntransubstantiation is the scholastic term used to designate the unique change of the Eucharistic bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The change is unique

Correct. The word "IS" is deleted. And the substituted word is NOT "change" but rather a very, very technical precise word from alchemy, the word "TRANSUBSTANTIATION." The point is to reject Real Presence (based on the word "IS" - this IS, this exists, this is present, this is real, this is received) and replace it with alchemy, that alchemy's central point is the reality, the dogma, the point.

And then to contradict the issue of reality by insisting that only ACCIDENTS may be present; that we must not accept what Jesus said and Paul penned, what is stated as real may not be real (at least in the usual or full sense): Things can SEEM one way but that can be deceiving.



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Correct. The word "IS" is deleted. ...

Deleted from where?

 

[Josiah]

Deleted from where?

You keep substituting the word "CHANGE" and the actual very, very technical dogma of your singular denomination since 1551: Transubstantiation.


See post # 57. Give it a try.





.