The Eucharist--Just a symbol or much more?

[Jeff_56]

"just in case" , remember that it is NOT a new sacrifice of JESUS every time, whether once a year or more often.

"just in case" because over 2 billion souls lost to the heresy are taught an abominable lie to that effect and RE-CRUCIFY christ jesus daily, EVERY TIME they participate --- a tragic deception, a complete deception,

fully disclosed in charles chiniquoy's "fifty years in the church of rome" and
(he was known across the usa, canada and much of europe as a priest of the heresy(rome);
until he got saved, and the pope excommunicated him;
his entire congregation left with him for the GOSPEL'S SAKE)

also (the abomination/corrupting in the rcc)
fully disclosed in keith green's "the catholic chronicles" (for which they sought to kill him, and might have)

 

[Jeff_56]

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

even without knowing the OT, the NT is simple enough to be understood by those who yahweh has mercy on, as long as they do not trust the rcc and it's abominations.

why they say "real flesh and blood" and re-crucify jesus each time is complete and utter abomination and deception.

jesus said it very simple "my words are spirit, and they are life" when he TOLD HIS DISCIPLES.

why those deceived by the rcc don't see this is because yahweh has allowed them to believe their own lies.

 

[CRC]

The Institution of “the Lord’s Evening Meal”
Jesus himself instituted “the Lord’s evening meal,” or Memorial of his death. (1 Corinthians 11:20, 24) However, did he set up a mysterious rite in which his followers would actually eat his body and drink his blood?
Jesus had just celebrated the Jewish Passover and dismissed Judas Iscariot, the apostle who was about to betray him. Matthew, one of the 11 apostles present, reported: “As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: ‘Take, eat. This means my body.’ Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks [Greek, eu·kha·ri·ste΄sas], he gave it to them, saying: ‘Drink out of it, all of you; for this means my “blood of the covenant,” which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.’”—Matthew 26:26-28.
For Jesus, as for all of God’s servants, asking a blessing on the food was a matter of course. (Deuteronomy 8:10; Matthew 6:11; 14:19; 15:36; Mark 6:41; 8:6; John 6:11, 23; Acts 27:35; Romans 14:6)

 

[mikeuk]

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

The Old Testament is fulfilled in the new. There is much in the Old Testament that is a precursor, as is the un bloody sacrifice of melchisedech. But the new covenant in Jesus's body and blood is new and he says so. It may have been alluded to in the OT, but it is not the same and is stated as " new". As I pointed out to the previous poster, you can only explain John 6 in terms of Jesus meaning real flesh and blood, or by believing he was a very poor communicator and evangelist, since he let his disciples depart rather than simply stating it was just symbolic or spiritual. History records he said neither, and by implication said , so that is the truth so now you know that are you going too Peter.

Trajan and Plinys correspondence shows people thought that Christians were cannibals , so it clearly points to the " real flesh" interpretation being prevalent, - also a love of torturing deacons , but that is another matter!

 

[SAVAS]

Does anyone care for truth these days?

After reading this passage I don't understand why we cant even begin to think that maybe possibly for a moment the communion could actually be the real presence. Furthermore, the stance on the real presence for 2,000 years. If the Holy Spirit wanted us to believe otherwise wouldn't we see some sort of symbolic nature in the explanation of Christ at the last supper, or a paraphrase by John?

He said, "take eat, this is my body, its a symbol of my flesh". He could cleared it up a bit sooner.

 

[Elin]

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

The Old Testament is fulfilled in the new. There is much in the Old Testament that is a precursor, as is
the un bloody sacrifice of melchisedech.

Melchizedek had nothing to do with the Sinaitic (old) covenant and the Mosaic law.

But the new covenant in Jesus's body and blood is new and he says so. It
may have been alluded to in the OT,

It was promised in the OT, as a "new" covenant (Jer 31:32).

but it is not the same and is stated as " new".

The OT Fellowship sacrifice is not related to the new covenant.

Trajan and Plinys correspondence shows people thought that Christians were cannibals , so it clearly points to the " real flesh" interpretation being prevalent,

 

[mikeuk]

Melchizedek had nothing to do with the Sinaitic (old) covenant and the Mosaic law.



It was promised in the OT, as a "new" covenant (Jer 31:32).


The OT Fellowship sacrifice is not related to the new covenant.

Sorry, I missed your earlier post, I assumed was a reference back to melchisedech.
I find it fascinating the linkages and analogies between OT and new T.

 

[Jeff_56]

After reading this passage I don't understand why we cant even begin to think that maybe possibly for a moment the communion could actually be the real presence. Furthermore, the stance on the real presence for 2,000 years. If the Holy Spirit wanted us to believe otherwise wouldn't we see some sort of symbolic nature in the explanation of Christ at the last supper, or a paraphrase by John?

He said, "take eat, this is my body, its a symbol of my flesh". He could cleared it up a bit sooner.

have you not read the BIBLE? without man's various interpretations.

instead of symbolic, and instead of 'real presence'(an abomination from the heresy),

jesus simply said "my words are spirit, and they are life". simple.

the truth is simple, not an abomination (in fact, the abomination of the heresy is the simplest evidence that the so-called and wrong idea of "real presence" of flesh and blood is like all of the heresy an abomination and not even to be considered, no, not even to be thought about. it is condemned.

the stance on the "real presence" for 2000 years by the heresy, by the abomination.... THAT you consider GOOD!?!?

the heresy, the rcc, for 2000 years has always been opposed to the truth, never a champion for it nor even on the side of truth.

yahweh does want his children to believe otherwise instead of believing he heresy,
and yahweh's children have always continued to believe otherwise, and not believed in the heresy. (remember those who trust in man or trust in the heresy ARE NOT HIS CHILDREN, and there is NO TRUTH IN THEM)...

everyone must find out from yahweh, as he permits. his children are in 100% AGREEMENT IN JESUS,
and all of us are opposed to the heresy and to the lie of the "real presence" flesh which is an abomination from hell.

if, unstated, you believe "real presence" as in spirit, as yahshua says, then you may be okay.

but anyone who thinks "real presence" as in flesh, they remain outside of JESUS. if they turn to JESUS, HE HIMSELF lets them know the TRUTH of this,
and so those who turn to JESUS turn away from the abomination and that sin of heresy.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

The evangelical and reformationist fudges and workaround do not work.

don't lump all protestants into the same category on the real presence doctrine...a number of protestant and evangelical denominations -do- believe in the doctrine of real presence...including many of the early reformers such as martin luther...

 

[john17]

"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)

You'll often find Early Church Fathers affirming the symbolism of the Eucharist, which is because the Eucharist is symbolic.

The species of bread and wine physically resemble the Body and Blood of Christ. Likewise, in giving Himself to us under the species of bread and wine, Jesus signals that He's the One who sustains us and nourishes us.

The Church Fathers also pointed out that bread and wine are metabolized. That in eating them, they become part of your body. So in eating the Flesh and Blood of Christ, the Living Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, we are "metabolized," so to speak, into the Body of Christ. This is what Paul seems to allude to in 1 Cor. 10:17.

So someone saying that the Eucharist is symbolic isn't problematic. Baptism is also symbolic, since the form of water symbolizes visibly what's done invisibly. It's only problematic if they say that it's ONLY symbolic.

Let's take those Fathers that seem to appear adhered only to the symbolic nature of the Eucharist:

I. Tertullian
This is from Chapter 19 of On Prayer:
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"]Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations [these were fasting days], most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord's Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God's altar? When the Lord's Body has been received and reserved each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So Tertullian acknowledges the Eucharist as the Lord's Body, and says it's offered at "God's altar." He also calls it a participation in the Sacrifice. Protestants deny all three of these things.

II. Hippolytus
In this fragment of his writings, Hippolytus argues for the Real Presence on the basis of Proverbs 9:1-6:
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"]And to those that want understanding she said"—that is, to those who have not yet obtained the power of the Holy Ghost—"Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you;" by which is meant, that He gave His divine flesh and honoured blood to us, to eat and to drink it for the remission of sins.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

III. Clement of Alexandria
In Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos, Clement writes:
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"]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.
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both— of the water and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

That's about as clear as you can get, I think.


So, as you can see, all of the Church Fathers quoted believed that the Eucharist symbolized Christ, and that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ. Catholicism affirms both of these propositions, Protestantism doesn't. So it's hard to see these Fathers as being a challenge to the Catholic side.

 

[john17]

have you not read the BIBLE? without man's various interpretations.

instead of symbolic, and instead of 'real presence'(an abomination from the heresy),

jesus simply said "my words are spirit, and they are life". simple.

the truth is simple, not an abomination (in fact, the abomination of the heresy is the simplest evidence that the so-called and wrong idea of "real presence" of flesh and blood is like all of the heresy an abomination and not even to be considered, no, not even to be thought about. it is condemned.

the stance on the "real presence" for 2000 years by the heresy, by the abomination.... THAT you consider GOOD!?!?

the heresy, the rcc, for 2000 years has always been opposed to the truth, never a champion for it nor even on the side of truth.

yahweh does want his children to believe otherwise instead of believing he heresy,
and yahweh's children have always continued to believe otherwise, and not believed in the heresy. (remember those who trust in man or trust in the heresy ARE NOT HIS CHILDREN, and there is NO TRUTH IN THEM)...

everyone must find out from yahweh, as he permits. his children are in 100% AGREEMENT IN JESUS,
and all of us are opposed to the heresy and to the lie of the "real presence" flesh which is an abomination from hell.

if, unstated, you believe "real presence" as in spirit, as yahshua says, then you may be okay.

but anyone who thinks "real presence" as in flesh, they remain outside of JESUS. if they turn to JESUS, HE HIMSELF lets them know the TRUTH of this,
and so those who turn to JESUS turn away from the abomination and that sin of heresy.

But the people whole wrote the New Testament and the people who compiled them (note that there are hundreds of books competing for the inclusion in the New Testament) believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (not just symbolic).

So you are believing in a book (the Bible) written and compiled by heretics. What if they erred in selecting the correct books? How can you trust the Bible then?

 

[mikeuk]

You'll often find Early Church Fathers affirming the symbolism of the Eucharist, which is because the Eucharist is symbolic.

The species of bread and wine physically resemble the Body and Blood of Christ. Likewise, in giving Himself to us under the species of bread and wine, Jesus signals that He's the One who sustains us and nourishes us.

The Church Fathers also pointed out that bread and wine are metabolized. That in eating them, they become part of your body. So in eating the Flesh and Blood of Christ, the Living Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, we are "metabolized," so to speak, into the Body of Christ. This is what Paul seems to allude to in 1 Cor. 10:17.

So someone saying that the Eucharist is symbolic isn't problematic. Baptism is also symbolic, since the form of water symbolizes visibly what's done invisibly. It's only problematic if they say that it's ONLY symbolic.

Let's take those Fathers that seem to appear adhered only to the symbolic nature of the Eucharist:

I. Tertullian
This is from Chapter 19 of On Prayer:
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"]Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations [these were fasting days], most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord's Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God's altar? When the Lord's Body has been received and reserved each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So Tertullian acknowledges the Eucharist as the Lord's Body, and says it's offered at "God's altar." He also calls it a participation in the Sacrifice. Protestants deny all three of these things.

II. Hippolytus
In this fragment of his writings, Hippolytus argues for the Real Presence on the basis of Proverbs 9:1-6:
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"]And to those that want understanding she said"—that is, to those who have not yet obtained the power of the Holy Ghost—"Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you;" by which is meant, that He gave His divine flesh and honoured blood to us, to eat and to drink it for the remission of sins.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

III. Clement of Alexandria
In Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos, Clement writes:
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"]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.
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both— of the water and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

That's about as clear as you can get, I think.


So, as you can see, all of the Church Fathers quoted believed that the Eucharist symbolized Christ, and that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ. Catholicism affirms both of these propositions, Protestantism doesn't. So it's hard to see these Fathers as being a challenge to the Catholic side.

Not only that, but in ignatius to Smyrneans, only one generation from the apostles it clearly says to be a valid Eucharist it needs performing by the bishop or his appointee, so even for those who believe in real presence, but not the succession of bishops, there is a problem complying with tradition, the handing down of the faith , so a question of validity.

 

[mwc68]

If you read Numbers chapter 28; you will see that in this chapter, the appropriate sacrifice for various situations and occasions are described in detail. In addition, you will see that each offering was to be accompanied by a meal offering of unleavened bread, and a drink offering of wine or grape juice.

The meal offering and the drink offering, together, were known as the kiddush. Kiddush means sanctification.

Things of the world could not be presented for God's use without being sanctified.

At the last supper, Jesus did not institute anything new. He explained the true significance of the kiddush-- the sanctification of the offering.


He was saying, in effect, that the unleavened bread, which accompanies all your offerings, represents My body; and the wine / grape juice, which accompanies all your offerings, represents my blood.

Jesus NEVER taught trans-substantiation!

Jesus never taught representation, He said " This IS my body, this IS my blood" no representation, no symbol

 

[Elin]

Jesus never taught representation, He said " This IS my body, this IS my blood"
no representation, no symbol

You may find this of interest.

It allows for your understanding, as well as for those who disgree with you.

 

[Jeff_56]

After reading this passage I don't understand why we cant even begin to think that maybe possibly for a moment the communion could actually be the real presence. Furthermore, the stance on the real presence for 2,000 years. If the Holy Spirit wanted us to believe otherwise wouldn't we see some sort of symbolic nature in the explanation of Christ at the last supper, or a paraphrase by John?

He said, "take eat, this is my body, its a symbol of my flesh". He could cleared it up a bit sooner.

the early ekklesia had no problem understanding, and when a question came up they didn't have the rcc heresy to distract them.

notice he said/ it is written body, not flesh, by the way ,

and the additions satan made through the rcc organization (which was never his body)
are heinous, abominable, and without any shred of merit.

the "stance" for 2000 years is simply, and proof, that satan was the instigator of the rcc right at the start - and
right at the start the true ekklesia knew it, and they were put to death by the religious an political leaders, right at the start, and right up through to today - which every look at history shows, if you are honest.

this thread was started by a rcc promoter, it looks like, and wasn't meant to testify to the truth at all,
but
to defend the heresies of the rcc. (directly contrary to the rules the owner and admins of this site put in place long ago).

 

[Jeff_56]

Jesus never taught representation, He said " This IS my body, this IS my blood" no representation, no symbol

you can't read very well.... we, who are born again, are his body. we are not his flesh.

also, he said his words are spirit, and they are life. not symbolic or representing. spirit, and life.

that makes all the difference. rcc doesn't have jesus' spirit, nor are they part of his body, nor of his life.