Communion - Symbolic or Real?

[MoreCoffee]

... Foods are clean. We can't eat people, least of all the Lord. ...

Why can't we eat the Lord. Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves." (John 6:53)

 

[Alithis]

and we know he speaks of spiritual things and not carnal

 

[MoreCoffee]

and we know he speaks of spiritual things and not carnal

What does 'spiritual' mean? Is it a synonym for 'metaphorical'? Is that what you mean when you say "and we know he speaks of spiritual things and not carnal" after I quoted Jesus saying "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves"? Do you really mean that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in those words? If so why do you say it is a metaphor?

 

[Stravinsk]

Yes, it was unleavened bread according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke but John doesn't mention that it is unleavened. So why is that relevant? Jesus said "take eat, this is my body" why do you say that the words of the Lord are symbolic? Is the bread not his body?

Perhaps for the same reason a reasonable person doesn't interpret "be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees" to mean to watch out if some Pharisee is carrying around some yeast to make a loaf of wheat bread...

 

[MoreCoffee]

Perhaps for the same reason a reasonable person doesn't interpret "be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees" to mean to watch out if some Pharisee is carrying around some yeast to make a loaf of wheat bread...

I can't help but think that your choice of analogy is a mistake. Jesus did say ""Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees" yet he did not say "the leaven is for making a loaf of bread". The passage reads thus:

Be careful, Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." They discussed this among themselves and said, "It is because we didn't bring any bread." Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (Matthew 16:6-12)​

 

[visionary]

Ah, but you have to remember in the Old Testament WHY it was forbidden....because blood gives life. Leviticus 17:11.

Now, since Christ has atoned for our sins, we can have life again all due to the cross and in Communion we receive His blood poured out for us Luke 22:20. We are no longer separated from life but receive it because of Jesus.

Ohhh... I can picture it now... there you are at the cross of Jesus with your mouth wide open to drink in His blood while he is dying. It is almost like something out of a horror movie.

 

[Stravinsk]

I can't help but think that your choice of analogy is a mistake. Jesus did say ""Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees" yet he did not say "the leaven is for making a loaf of bread". The passage reads thus:

Be careful, Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." They discussed this among themselves and said, "It is because we didn't bring any bread." Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (Matthew 16:6-12)​

Right. Yeast represents false teaching. How does false teaching enter bread, unless bread is also symbolic of doctrine?

When Yeshua speaks of Himself as bread - falling from heaven like mana, rising to heaven, instructing the disciples to eat His flesh - which He likens to bread, why, out of all the context of the symbolism He uses with bread and Pharisee yeast, would He suddenly stop using the symbolism and start meaning physical bread from flour that turns into real flesh?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Right. Yeast represents false teaching. How does false teaching enter bread, unless bread is also symbolic of doctrine?

When Yeshua speaks of Himself as bread - falling from heaven like mana, rising to heaven, instructing the disciples to eat His flesh - which He likens to bread, why, out of all the context of the symbolism He uses with bread and Pharisee yeast, would He suddenly stop using the symbolism and start meaning physical bread from flour that turns into real flesh?

It appears that you've overworked the words of the Lord because you want to make something out of both the yeast and the bread yet the holy scriptures speak only of the yeast as significant and define the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees as the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

[Stravinsk]

It appears that you've overworked the words of the Lord because you want to make something out of both the yeast and the bread yet the holy scriptures speak only of the yeast as significant and define the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees as the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Oh I see. So the fact that yeast makes bread rise, puffed up, and full of air is wholly insignificant and should be disregarded completely when Yeshua speaks of bread, and furthermore, no bearing to the feast of UN leavened bread, because having your crucifixion, death and resurrection on the eve of, and during such a feast also bears no significance to bread as a significant symbolism to communicate a message. Yeast means false teaching. Bread means bread or it means flesh or bread turned into flesh - nothing to do with doctrine. Got it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh I see. So the fact that yeast makes bread rise, puffed up, and full of air is wholly insignificant and should be disregarded completely when Yeshua speaks of bread, and furthermore, no bearing to the feast of UN leavened bread, because having your crucifixion, death and resurrection on the eve of, and during such a feast also bears no significance to bread as a significant symbolism to communicate a message. Yeast means false teaching. Bread means bread or it means flesh or bread turned into flesh - nothing to do with doctrine. Got it.

It looks like you're arguing for the sake of it since the passage defines the meaning this way "But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

 

[Stravinsk]

It looks like you're arguing for the sake of it since the passage defines the meaning this way "But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

Yes. Um duh? Yeast is used as a symbol for false teaching, and it looks like you are being deliberately obtuse in not acknowledging it's use as a symbol related to bread. Perhaps you have never looked at the ingredients on a package of risen bread? Yeast is a major ingredient.

 

[Josiah]

.


Jesus said "do this" so it's probably okay to do it.

Jesus said "is" (not "is not" "symbolizes" "change" "transubstantiated" "represents")

Jesus said "body" (not "is not Body")

Jesus said "blood" (not "is not blood")

Jesus said "bread" (not "kinda, sorta seems like it but it's really an Aristotelian Accident")

Jesus said "wine/cup/fruit of the vine" (not "kinda, sorta seems like it but it's not, it's an Aristotelian Accident")

And again, "DO this" so it's probably not only permissible but probably a good thing to do it. And likely it's not sinful.






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.





Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[Full O Beans]

Why can't we eat the Lord. Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves." (John 6:53)

OMGosh. There is a definite disconnect when one insists on thinking in the temporal where he needs to rise up and think in the spiritual.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, it was unleavened bread according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke but John doesn't mention that it is unleavened. So why is that relevant? Jesus said "take eat, this is my body" why do you say that the words of the Lord are symbolic? Is the bread not his body?

Why can't we eat the Lord. Jesus said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves." (John 6:53)

OMGosh. There is a definite disconnect when one insists on thinking in the temporal where he needs to rise up and think in the spiritual.

Why is it worldly (temporal you said) to accept what Jesus said at face value? Why is it worldly to believe "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves"?

What do you mean by spiritual in relation to "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves", do you think it has some meaning that is different from what the words say?

 

[Josiah]

Why is it worldly (temporal you said) to accept what Jesus said at face value?

I agree.

Why is it more "spiritual" and more "biblical' to insist that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they said and penned, to admit what the words are and then DOGMATICALLY SHOUT, "But! But! They didn't MEAN that!!" Regardless of why you don't believe them, and what is insisted they MEANT rather than said/penned - which ever 16th Century substitution is promoted.



I agree:

Why shouldn't "IS" mean is (real, present, exists) rather than "is NOT but rather represents, symbolizes" or "has undergone a change from one reality to a foreign one via the percise, technial mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation?"

Why shouldn't "BODY" after the Consecration mean "body" rather than "is NOT body but rather, instead, represents and symbolizes"

Why shouldn't "BLOOD" after the Consecration mean "blood" rather than "is NOT blood but rather, instead, represents and symbolizes"

Why shouldn't "bread" after the Consecration mean "bread" rather than "is NOT bread but rather is only an Aristotelian accident."

Why shouldn't "wine" after the Consecration mean "wine" rather than "is NOT wine but only an Aristotelian Accident."

Why NOT believe what Jesus said? What Paul penned? At face value? Instead of these two 16th Century substitutions based on the premise that we should not accept what they said because they didn't MEAN what they said?




See post 132





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I agree.

Why is it more "spiritual" and more "biblical' to insist that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they said and penned, to admit what the words are and then DOGMATICALLY SHOUT, "But! But! They didn't MEAN that!!" Regardless of why you don't believe them, and what is insisted they MEANT rather than said/penned - which ever 16th Century substitution is promoted.

Fair enough.

I agree:

Why shouldn't "IS" mean is (real, present, exists) rather than "is NOT but rather represents, symbolizes" or "has undergone a change from one reality to a foreign one via the precise, technical mechanism of an alchemical Transubstantiation?"

Why shouldn't "BODY" after the Consecration mean "body" rather than "is NOT body but rather, instead, represents and symbolizes"

Why shouldn't "BLOOD" after the Consecration mean "blood" rather than "is NOT blood but rather, instead, represents and symbolizes"

Why shouldn't "bread" after the Consecration mean "bread" rather than "is NOT bread but rather is only an Aristotelian accident."

Why shouldn't "wine" after the Consecration mean "wine" rather than "is NOT wine but only an Aristotelian Accident."

Why NOT believe what Jesus said? What Paul penned? At face value? Instead of these two 16th Century substitutions based on the premise that we should not accept what they said because they didn't MEAN what they said?




See post 132

I reckon you just do not know when to stop.

 

[Josiah]

Fair enough.

Yup, there IS an alternative to the modern RCC and modern Zwinglian Evangelicals that insist we cannot just accept the words at face value, that dogmatically shout, "BUT.... BUT...... Jesus and Paul actually MEANT......."
Both theologically reject that "is" means is.
Both theologically deny half of the reality stated after the "is"
They do this differently, of course.
They deny other halves, of course.
They substitute different words for "is" of course.
But both are based on the same premise.
Both have the same objective - to get around what is actually stated.


So, YOU (of all people!) suggesting we take it "at face value" is.... well..... amazing. It's the one thing modern Catholics and Zwingian "EVangelicals" agree on: It must NOT, NOT be taken at face value! You both are dogmatic about that!
Pot calling kettle black.





.

 

[Full O Beans]

Why is it worldly (temporal you said) to accept what Jesus said at face value? Why is it worldly to believe "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves"?

What do you mean by spiritual in relation to "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves", do you think it has some meaning that is different from what the words say?

Even the most simple of minds MISTOOK Jesus for literal and were repulsed. It's even more foolish to consider Him as literal and to embrace the error.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Even the most simple of minds MISTOOK Jesus for literal and were repulsed. It's even more foolish to consider Him as literal and to embrace the error.

Are you referring to John chapter six? Do you think that chapter is about communion? If you do then why did Jesus emphasise the words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood after the disciples (not the 12) made it clear that they disliked what he was saying?

In the end they said "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60) and the Lord replied ""Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe."(John 6:61-64) He challenges them to believe yet he knew that some of them did not. From that time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

 

[Full O Beans]

Are you referring to John chapter six? Do you think that chapter is about communion? If you do then why did Jesus emphasise the words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood after the disciples (not the 12) made it clear that they disliked what he was saying?

In the end they said "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60) and the Lord replied ""Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe."(John 6:61-64) He challenges them to believe yet he knew that some of them did not. From that time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Jesus emphasized it to reveal how the literal is not the correct understanding. We have Holy Spirit to reveal this truth to us---but we need to have ears to hear.