The Eucharist--Just a symbol or much more?

[Jackson123]

[h=2]The Eucharist--Just a symbol or much more?[/h]
What do you mean by much more?

Let me guess.

1. Much more mean not only symbol but real flash and blood of Jesus.

In this case, easy to investigate. Take the bread and wine that has been blessed by priest to the laboratory.

Check if the bread turn to flesh and wine to blood.

If not than it is fraud.

 

[valiant]

It does speak for itself, take all the early church fathers , those taught by the apostles and on. All believed in real presence, and they treated the Eucharist with reverence, not one of them said symbolic. Not one said only spiritual. All stated it was body and blood, which is made quite clear at Capernaum.
Until everyone played " designer Christianity " after the reformation, demanding their right to their " own interpretation" nobody doubted the real presence.

It is a slam dunk.

This is simply untrue. Show me where any early father spoke of 'the real presence'. They spoke vividly of the body and blood of Christ being represented in the Lord's Supper, just as I would, but they never claimed that it had actually turned literally into His body and blood as a 'real presence'. You just assume what you want to prove.

When Jesus said 'this is My body' He was actually in His body. So it could not have been His body. Indeed He said the bread was 'a remembrance'. What then was the bread? A second body? No it was a piece of unleavened barley bread which was a remembrance of the crucifixion that was soon to be. THAT IS WHAT HE SAID.

People in those days used vivid language. David said that the water brought to him by his three followers WAS THEIR BLOOD. Is that what he meant? Was there a 'real presence'? Of course there was not. He knew it was water but spoke of drinking their blood.

When Jesus spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood He was following David. In His case He meant that they would do so by killing Him (eating flesh is a regular picture of killing in the Old Testament) and then by benefiting by His death as David could have benefited by the risking of his men's lives which he would have called 'drinking their blood''.

And that is what the Lord's Supper represents. We eat His body and drink of His blood when we eat and drink the elements, and there is a genuine spiritual communion with Christ..

 

[ivanc0]

without the Old Testament a good bit of the New Testament is meaningless.

The Bible was preserved around the world. The RC church preserved it in LATIN. And as mentioned above they tried their best to ensure it remained in Latin lest those heretical English find out the truth. It was preserved IN SPITE OF the Roman Catholic Church BY SCHOLARS. It was also preserved in the churches which were not Roman Catholic.

Prove it. (You can not make such an affirmation and not prove it)

The bible we use today is the catholic bible, the cover is changed, some wording, it says Yawe, instead of Jehova. but is the basically Identical.

My prove is simple, get a catholic bible and a protestant one and read it verse a verse and and you find they are equal.

 

[valiant]

Prove it. (You can not make such an affirmation and not prove it)

The bible we use today is the catholic bible, the cover is changed, some wording, it says Yawe, instead of Jehova. but is the basically Identical.

My prove is simple, get a catholic bible and a protestant one and read it verse a verse and and you find they are equal.

LOL Until fairly recently the Roman Catholics always used the Vulgate. Modern Roman Catholic Bibles are actually borrowed from Bibles prepared by independent scholars. Thus when the RSV was translated the Roman Catholics were allowed to use it and make the amendments required by their church. Thus the comparison you suggest would mean that I was checking how far the Roman Catholic version had copied the original

At least you are now unmasked for what you are.

 

[mikeuk]

"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."
(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)

The problem with Clement is knowing what he did think, because in stomata he admits he talks in riddles , "so that the discovery of the sacred traditions may not be easy to any one of the uninitiated" so he says he himself is talking in allegory, and a roundabout way. And whatever he did think, he is only one voice.

 

[mikeuk]

One other aspect, not an article of faith nor does RCC have a stance on such things, but I as ex scientist find compelling , is that scientific evidence for Eucharistic miracles conducted by respected forensic labs - some of which is not only compelling but also astounding - that for example the miracle myocardium cells were alive at the time of sampling demonstrable by the white cells which dissolve very rapidly in vitro, so would not be present in necrotic tissue but were present at the time of sampling.

 

[MarcR]

IMO Nothing which comes from the Alexandrian church is worth knowing or having; whether or not it is understood: including Vaticanus and Sinaticus.

 

[valiant]

One other aspect, not an article of faith nor does RCC have a stance on such things, but I as ex scientist find compelling , is that scientific evidence for Eucharistic miracles conducted by respected forensic labs - some of which is not only compelling but also astounding - that for example the miracle myocardium cells were alive at the time of sampling demonstrable by the white cells which dissolve very rapidly in vitro, so would not be present in necrotic tissue but were present at the time of sampling.

LOL are you still claiming that? And guess where the laboratories were? Roman Catholic South America. Why are the same things not discovered in reputable independent UK laboratories? Its like bleeding statues, weeping virgins, all fake.

I'm glad you said EX-scientist LOL

 

[NarrowRoadDisciple]

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NKJV
Institution of the Lord’s Supper

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat;[b] this is My body which is broken[c] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner Healso took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

Bread: Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me
Cup: This cup is the new covenant (yes Jesus inaugurated the new covenant here) in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it in REMEMBRANCE of Me

I really don't see the issue of the symbolic nature of the Lord's Supper. Christ was not saying to literally eat His flesh, and drink His blood, but we understand the symbolic nature of this ordinance Christ asked us to partake in. Yes this symbolic act has spiritual power. We cannot partake in the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner. The scriptures say that when we do, many are sick and sleep, some even die. It is a time of intimate relationship with Christ, and we do look inwardly and judge ourselves before partaking to see if we can.

This was done on Passover, the day He died and it inaugurated the new covenant in Christ . Every time we partake in the Lord's Supper, we remember and proclaim Christ's death until He comes again, and a fulfillment of the Passover feast.

 

[mikeuk]

LOL are you still claiming that? And guess where the laboratories were? Roman Catholic South America. Why are the same things not discovered in reputable independent UK laboratories? Its like bleeding statues, weeping virgins, all fake.

I'm glad you said EX-scientist LOL

Then you have not read the evidence, you just prejudge it. Amongst others forensic and gene testing labs in US and Australia, and also state pathologists from such as New York.

As always, You make assumptions based on lack of knowledge.

 

[mikeuk]

Christ was not saying to literally eat His flesh, and drink His blood

That was precisely what those listening at capernaum in john 6 though he meant, as scripture records, and rather than allay their concerns saying " just spiritual, an allegory, just symbolic, just a parable" history records he lets many of his disciples leave rather than satisfy their concerns, simply asking Peter whether he would leave because of it too?

So that is precisely what he said and meant, and he softened not a word of it.
" Memorialists" have no satisfactory answer to that, or indeed St Pauls clear statements about the " flesh and blood"

 

[Jackson123]

even if we not bring it to the laboratory, naked eyes able to distinguish between bread and human flesh.

 

[Elin]

No responses here?! Great question.

In the OT, the sinner participated with the priest in a meal on the Fellowship (Peace) Offering, wherein he received the benefits of the sacrifice, among them fellowship with God and the priest who offered it.

The Lord's Supper is the NT sacrificial meal wherein, with the priest who offered it, we participate (1Co 10:16) in the benefits purchased by the NT sacrifice.
It is more than a symbol, it is spiritual reality.

 

[NarrowRoadDisciple]

That was precisely what those listening at capernaum in john 6 though he meant, as scripture records, and rather than allay their concerns saying " just spiritual, an allegory, just symbolic, just a parable" history records he lets many of his disciples leave rather than satisfy their concerns, simply asking Peter whether he would leave because of it too?

Exactly, those at Capernaum THOUGHT Jesus was telling them to eat His literal flesh and blood as they did not understand or discern what Christ was telling them regarding the symbolic nature and spiritual power in the Lord's Supper. Since they did not discern this and they could not understand, these disciples departed from Christ and walked with Him no more.

 

[mikeuk]

Exactly, those at Capernaum THOUGHT Jesus was telling them to eat His literal flesh and blood as they did not understand or discern what Christ was telling them regarding the symbolic nature and spiritual power in the Lord's Supper. Since they did not discern this and they could not understand, these disciples departed from Christ and walked with Him no more.

So you accuse Jesus of being an incompetent evangelist unable to make himself understood, or you accuse him of actively misleading them, which?

I prefer the obvious explanation: he was crystal clear in what he meant, and those present found it so unsalable to their old ways, they left. That is what scripture says. They were there and you were not, and what they heard made them leave.

The evangelical and reformationist fudges and workaround do not work. There is no satisfactory explanation other than real flesh and blood, unless you accuse Jesus of being incompetent at communication.

 

[mattp0625]

A Protestant seems to say the bible is the truth and the only way...except when it's inconvenient. Then it becomes only symbolic.

 

[JaumeJ]

When Christ broke bread, He instructed us that when we do it, to do it im memory of Him. So also when we drink wine. The Bread symbolizes His Body sacrificed for our sins, provided we accept this free gift. The wine represents His Blood, the true life is in the blood, the Blood of the Lamb of God.

When we share the Word of God we are breaking the Bread from heaven and sharing it with others imparting the life from His Blood to all who will receive It. Just as Jesus shared His bread and wine for all.

He is the Bread from heaven born in "The House of Bread," for Bethlehem does translate completely as the house of Bread.

He does not expect people to become cannibals, He is teaching us to share the Bread and the Blood, His teaching and HIs Life. Another important aspect of breaking bread and sharing the wine is living the Word and Living the Life given to each of us by His awesome sacrificial gift to all who will receive It, Salvation.

A Protestant seems to say the bible is the truth and the only way...except when it's inconvenient. Then it becomes only symbolic.

There is no such thing as transmutation. God frowns on cannabalism.

 

[Elin]

Exactly, those at Capernaum THOUGHT Jesus was telling them to eat His literal flesh and blood as they did not understand or discern what Christ was telling them regarding the symbolic nature and spiritual power in the Lord's Supper. Since they did not discern this and they could not understand, these disciples departed from Christ and walked with Him no more.

Jesus was telling them that in the NT covenant sacrificial meal they would be participating (1Co 10:16) in the benefits of his sacrifice just as in the OT covenant they participated in the benefits of the Fellowship (Peace) sacrifice in its sacrificial meal.

 

[Elin]

So you accuse Jesus of being an incompetent evangelist unable to make himself understood, or you accuse him of actively misleading them, which?

I prefer the obvious explanation: he was crystal clear in what he meant, and those present found it so unsalable to their old ways, they left. That is what scripture says. They were there and you were not, and what they heard made them leave.

The evangelical and reformationist fudges and workaround do not work. There is no satisfactory explanation other than real flesh and blood, unless you accuse Jesus of being incompetent at communication.

Or unless we are unaware of the OT context in which he used this sacrificial language.

 

[Elin]

There is no such thing as transmutation. God frowns on cannabalism.

And the early Christians were called cannibals by some.