Why can't the bread & wine be the body & blood of the Lord?

[Lamb]

Flaming needs to end now please. Back on topic!

 

[Cassia]

The first Passover...was it real? Or was it symbolic?

The Lamb was symbolic just as Jesus has a lamb as a symbol, or the tree of life , gate, savior etc

 

[Lamb]

The Lamb was symbolic just as Jesus has a lamb as a symbol, or the tree of life , gate, savior etc

So there was no importance then? Nothing really was going to happen, was it? Or did it mean something?

 

[Cassia]

So there was no importance then? Nothing really was going to happen, was it? Or did it mean something?

The lamb more than any other symbol was significant because it was only offered twice. Once for the Passover and the other one at the time of the wave offering, which is actually part of the Lent we're in now, which is the time between the wave offer and Pentecost. I started a thread on it in one of the forums that I'll link to. It has that two-fold aspect of out of Egypt plus God's propitiation in Christ. It's actually very important.

http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?3496-Wave-offerings-to-Pentecost

 

[Lamb]

The lamb more than any other symbol was significant because it was only offered twice. Once for the Passover and the other one at the time of the wave offering, which is actually part of the Lent we're in now, which is the time between the wave offer and Pentecost. I started a thread on it in one of the forums that I'll link to. It has that two-fold aspect of out of Egypt plus God's propitiation in Christ. It's actually very important.

http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?3496-Wave-offerings-to-Pentecost

The lamb wasn't symbolic because God had a promised attached first to the blood on the doorposts and then the eating. If it was merely symbolic it wouldn't have mattered at all if they didn't do it.

 

[user1234]

Most are just getting sick of others claiming exclusive rights to Christianity

Amen. Ppl are free to interpret and believe the scriptures as they see fit, but they shouldn't be insisting on others believing what and how they do.

The Lamb was symbolic just as Jesus has a lamb as a symbol, or the tree of life , gate, savior etc

Amen again. Some things are symbolic, some things are actual, some literal, some figurative.
Jesus is LITERALLY the Saviour because He saved us.
He is SYMBOLICALLY the Door because He's the Way 'in' to God/salvation, but He's not LITERALLY made of wood with a doorknob and hinges.

So there was no importance then? Nothing really was going to happen, was it? Or did it mean something?

Why would you imply that just because something is symbolic it has no importance? Or no meaning?
Of course these things are extremely important and meaningful! And great cause for rejoicing!

 

[Cassia]

The lamb more than any other symbol was significant because it was only offered twice. Once for the Passover and the other one at the time of the wave offering, which is actually part of the Lent we're in now, which is the time between the wave offer and Pentecost. I started a thread on it in one of the forums that I'll link to. It has that two-fold aspect of out of Egypt plus God's propitiation in Christ. It's actually very important.

http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?3496-Wave-offerings-to-Pentecost

That was actually for Tangible He never did answer me on that.

The lamb wasn't symbolic because God had a promised attached first to the blood on the doorposts and then the eating. If it was merely symbolic it wouldn't have mattered at all if they didn't do it.

That's is the thing tho as Josiah said we can't just say well maybe ...

 

[MoreCoffee]

When John the Baptist said "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" he was not speaking figuratively. Jesus is the lamb of God. Jesus does take away the sins of the world.

 

[Cassia]

When John the Baptist said "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" he was not speaking figuratively. Jesus is the lamb of God. Jesus does take away the sins of the world.

He is the Word too, that makes for real edification.

 

[Cassia]

If ingestion is the key to acquiring His Presence then does the ingestion heal?

 

[MoreCoffee]

If ingestion is the key to acquiring His Presence then does the ingestion heal?

Why do you ask if ingestion is the key? Is it not sufficient to take what Jesus said at face value and proceed from there? "I am the bread of life. ... This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die."

 

[Cassia]

Why do you ask if ingestion is the key? Is it not sufficient to take what Jesus said at face value and proceed from there? "I am the bread of life. ... This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die."

For the same reason anybody questions ... to get answers. Ingestion of bread as flesh (rather than edification from Christ in remembrance) is held to be the difference so to wonder why the importance in matters such as the benefit of Christ in the actual bread must be considered.

 

[Lamb]

If ingestion is the key to acquiring His Presence then does the ingestion heal?

Jesus said Take eat. In the original language I believe I read that the term translates to chew.

Communion is about God giving us benefits from the cross. Our action isn't what causes anything. It's the promise attached which is why I brought up Passover. Wasn't there a promise attached?

Also the rainbow after the flood. God attached a promise.

To Namaan the leper, God attached a promise.

I could go on and on. But if you look throughout the bible you'll see how God attaches promises to physical things. Have you ever considered it like that?

 

[psalms 91]

It also says that if you take the communion unworithly it can lead to death early so therefore if you take it worithly does it not promote healing and health?

 

[MoreCoffee]

It also says that if you take the communion unworithly it can lead to death early so therefore if you take it worithly does it not promote healing and health?

The faithful are inclined to pray "May this body and blood be food for my soul and to the health of my body and may it bring me to eternal life. Amen"

 

[Cassia]

Jesus said Take eat. In the original language I believe I read that the term translates to chew.

Communion is about God giving us benefits from the cross. Our action isn't what causes anything. It's the promise attached which is why I brought up Passover. Wasn't there a promise attached?

Also the rainbow after the flood. God attached a promise.

To Namaan the leper, God attached a promise.

I could go on and on. But if you look throughout the bible you'll see how God attaches promises to physical things. Have you ever considered it like that?

Yes I have. There are conditions attached to most of the promises. But I have never considered how I view things to be considered part of conditions. What I mean by that is Jesus told us that the law had changed to just the thought leaves someone guilty in matters of adultery. I don't consider the thought as being involved just the command to take and eat, doing so in remembrance of Him. iow, the thought attached to communion is not subject to thoughts beyond that of the action. Or are you saying that to not consider it His flesh is committing spiritual adultery? Because to take in a worthy manner is to be in consideration of all He has done, not thoughts toward the ingestion pf the bread but rather a Romans 12:2-3 aspect happening within ( a renewing of the mind)

 

[Lamb]

Yes I have. There are conditions attached to most of the promises. But I have never considered how I view things to be considered part of conditions. What I mean by that is Jesus told us that the law had changed to just the thought leaves someone guilty in matters of adultery. I don't consider the thought as being involved just the command to take and eat, doing so in remembrance of Him. iow, the thought attached to communion is not subject to thoughts beyond that of the action. Or are you saying that to not consider it His flesh is committing spiritual adultery? Because to take in a worthy manner is to be in consideration of all He has done, not thoughts toward the ingestion pf the bread but rather a Romans 12:2-3 aspect happening within ( a renewing of the mind)

No one has insisted that the Lord's Supper is a condition.

The Lord's Supper is not Law talk. It's Gospel. It's God giving His body and blood for us just as He gave the manna for the Israelites to eat. He nourishes us and that isn't a condition.

I have no idea what you're talking about with the spiritual adultery question. The Romans verse has nothing to do with communion.

 

[Cassia]

It's very tangent to the discussion when Josiah wrongly says no one believed differently for 1500 yrs

The Paedagogus (Clement of Alexandria)
The Paedagogus (Book I)

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…”

But relevant to topic:

Presence=Gk. parousia
used in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9; James 5:7, 8; 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28

None of which refers to the bread.

That is why it could not be. Is doesn't cut it.

Are you certain that your portion of text from Clement of Alexander is instruction on the Eucharist since if you read more into him you'll be finding quotes such as this

Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos, in which Clement says:

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

As I suspected.... this ONE example that was claimed to be found, actually is not: the affirmation of Real Presence was just snipped out.


Thanks for noting that, Turtle!


- Josiah

That still does not take away from the fact that it was noted by Clement of Alexandria to also be figurative.

It is not the bread that is said to figuratively represent anything it is the flesh that is said to do that and the thing that the flesh is said to figuratively represent is the Holy Spirit. Thus Clement of Alexandria is not teaching that the bread & wine are symbolic of the body and blood of Christ, he called the bread the flesh and the wine the blood because Clement of Alexandria believed and taught that the bread & wine in the holy Eucharist are the body and the blood of Christ.

Is not what is being received in the Eucharist the Holy Spirit?

What one receives in communion is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Quote Originally Posted by TurtleHare View Post
Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos, in which Clement says:

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

Could you please elaborate on the bolded part, TurtleHare

Not to lose track of the previous conversation also

 

[MoreCoffee]

Never fear Cassia, we all have the previous posts in the thread on our computers so we can remember what the conversation has covered.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I thought that it symbolised the fact that the sustinence and and physician of the faithful is Christ, and the ceremony is a remembrance of that.

I admit that I could be off the mark here and would gladly receive either edification or rebuke with further substantiation (with scriptural references preferably).

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk