Is Communion (the Eucharist) just a symbol?
- Thread starter Ryan1976
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
Yes he's not Catholic but he's arguing from the Catholic point of view.
The language is figurative. Those that took him literally walked no longer with him. The disciples who remained were puzzled too, but they were getting used to Jesus saying strange or even outrageous things in order to make a spiritual point.
But here's a very simple logical argument against transubstantiation:
Jesus referred to His blood as wine (the fruit of the vine) because he referred to himself elsewhere as the vine. So when Jesus said "I am the vine", do you believe He was saying he was a literal vine? If the vine is symbolic for Jesus the vine, then the fruit of the vine, is also symbolic for Jesus's blood. Or perhaps when Jesus said "I am the door", do you think Jesus was a literal door? I'm sure it's possible God can make himself into a door, but hopefully you can distinguish between literal and symbolic statements.
So when Jesus said "this is my blood", he meant "this represents my blood".
The language is figurative. Those that took him literally walked no longer with him. The disciples who remained were puzzled too, but they were getting used to Jesus saying strange or even outrageous things in order to make a spiritual point.
But here's a very simple logical argument against transubstantiation:
Jesus referred to His blood as wine (the fruit of the vine) because he referred to himself elsewhere as the vine. So when Jesus said "I am the vine", do you believe He was saying he was a literal vine? If the vine is symbolic for Jesus the vine, then the fruit of the vine, is also symbolic for Jesus's blood. Or perhaps when Jesus said "I am the door", do you think Jesus was a literal door? I'm sure it's possible God can make himself into a door, but hopefully you can distinguish between literal and symbolic statements.
So when Jesus said "this is my blood", he meant "this represents my blood".
Actually, it was the ones who couldn't take Him literally who left. The ones who took Him at His word, that the bread really was His Flesh, and the wine His Blood, stayed.
Let's take a step back. In the past, when Our Lord spoke in parables, when there was confusion over His meaning, He took the time to clarify things (Matt. 16:5–12). Here, when He is talking about eternal life, He doesn't go off and say, "Guys, I was being figurative." Instead, He says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Quite a bit different than in the past, almost like He's emphasizing that this really is His Flesh and His Blood. And the reaction of the disciples implies bewilderment over this statement, "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?'"
At that statement He tells them that they won't comprehend the truth except by way of the Spirit, without that grace, their fleshly minds can't grasp the concept.
"It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63)
And then still there were some who simply couldn't accept His literal words and left, "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
Remember, Our Lord said, "This is my blood." He didn't say, "This represents my blood." He knew what He meant and said exactly that.
Let's take a step back. In the past, when Our Lord spoke in parables, when there was confusion over His meaning, He took the time to clarify things (Matt. 16:5–12). Here, when He is talking about eternal life, He doesn't go off and say, "Guys, I was being figurative." Instead, He says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Quite a bit different than in the past, almost like He's emphasizing that this really is His Flesh and His Blood. And the reaction of the disciples implies bewilderment over this statement, "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?'"
At that statement He tells them that they won't comprehend the truth except by way of the Spirit, without that grace, their fleshly minds can't grasp the concept.
"It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63)
And then still there were some who simply couldn't accept His literal words and left, "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
Remember, Our Lord said, "This is my blood." He didn't say, "This represents my blood." He knew what He meant and said exactly that.
They left because they had their minds only on their stomachs and did not think about the spiritual meaning behind what Christ said, leaving in disgust that Christ would offer his own body as food and drink. They were thinking with their natural minds wanting manna from heaven to fill their stomachs. If you look at the context Jesus was followed by a crowd who basically only followed him because he fed them. Jesus used a shock tactic to divide the true followers from the carnal. The ones who remained said it was a hard saying because they could barely accept Christ had told them to actually eat his flesh and drink his blood. But Christ reassures them that it is figurative when he says: "does this offend you?", and then reassures them that it is His words that give life, not the consumption of food. This was a test of their own faith in Him if anything else.
But to reduce Christ's words merely to a literal statement that we are to actually cannabilise his body and blood makes us cannibals far worse than those Jews who were offended by what Christ said and left. Jesus most certainly said that they must literally eat his flesh. But only the unspiritual take his word literally as that, and think no more of it. We also need to consider his words about the Spirit and his words giving life.
Christ was not saying that wine is his blood or bread is his body any more than he said that he was literally a vine or was literally a door, or literally manna. Taking this sort of literal interpretation to everything in the scripture will lead to very strange doctrines.
But to reduce Christ's words merely to a literal statement that we are to actually cannabilise his body and blood makes us cannibals far worse than those Jews who were offended by what Christ said and left. Jesus most certainly said that they must literally eat his flesh. But only the unspiritual take his word literally as that, and think no more of it. We also need to consider his words about the Spirit and his words giving life.
Christ was not saying that wine is his blood or bread is his body any more than he said that he was literally a vine or was literally a door, or literally manna. Taking this sort of literal interpretation to everything in the scripture will lead to very strange doctrines.
Last edited:
J
God hates evil and so should we. We should know his heart. The Roman Catholic Doctrine is from the pit of hell. I do not hate the people as God's children will come out of the false image all over the world. Just call things for what they are. Crap. Even Beezabub is call king of the dunghill and that is where the Roman Catholic doctrine come from a dunghill. I will not be politically correct just to gain favor of others.
J
I did forget to comment that should be a real eye opening if Roman Catholics would be afraid. That is their problem. They do not have a genuine fear of God. They have more fear of being excommunicated by their own kind rather having fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom. You have the Catholic, the Church of England and Lutheran who have their catecisms for others to take and join their church in order to be able to partake in communion. That is blasphemy! You need to be angry at this crap! If you are not upset in how the devil is deceiving millions to hell, you should be! I remember when I was going to catecism to get confirmed to take communion and I quit going through it and stopped because I realized that it was a bunch of crap. Even at a young age, God gave me discernment and I was not even saved yet! That makes me wonder if there is any such thing as individuals who are "spiritually retarded" and that is why they are too simple minded to be able to recognize the obvious. (I am not knocking the retarded who are born that way at birth mind you so I don't want anybody to twist my imput) I am speaking about spiritual morons who listen and trust man rather than God. And, I don't have a religeon. Even the first church did not call themselves Christians. That is actually a derogatory term that was used to make fun of them being "little Christs". They called their own followers after "the way"
I was raised in the Anglican church and yes it would be a lot different now in general, from at least the 80's and possibly the 70's - but the anglican communion worldwide can be quite different from country to country. To their credit I suppose in the 60's they weren't ordaining women or homosexuals as they are today... so what are you complaining about? They'll baptise anyone now and confirm anyone and anyone can take communion who wants it and there's usually no problems considering they dont believe the water and wine and bread changes into Jesus's body or blood in any way. I think I'd prefer 60's style to current practice any day.
Last edited:
J
I used to attend St. Augustines in Brisbane with my close friend. We sang in the childrens choir at weddings etc and would get paid fifty cents and we loved it so we could buy "lollies" afterwards. That was back in 1960j's. My friend would go up at communion and partake of the thimble of wine, it was port, and come back and blow her breath in my face and smile!
H
Yeah Jez, I've been to some Catholic (not roman catholic) churches who, like the Episcopal, or Anglican churches, allow anybody to come share in the feast God prepared for us. My best bud, who is somehow both athiestic and polythiestic went to the Episcopal church and even he, who openly confessed he didn't really believe in God could go up and at least get a blessing. I think the only requirement for communion is that you be baptized. (Which later, my friend did get baptized, on Easter, and for some reason it scared him and he hasn't set foot in a church again. I think he was shocked to find out the Holy Spirit is real)
M
Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds [trogon in Greek] on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds [trogon] on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the Father who has life sent me and I have life because of the Father so the man who feeds [trogon] on me will have life because of me. . . (John 6:53-57)
You people are just flat out mean and hateful, in love of coarse. I thank you for your commits, but I will stand on the words of Christ not man, I meant mean and hateful men. If you don't want to believe Christ then don't just make something up. IF YOU DON'T EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU. I didn't say it, but Christ has said YOU have no life in you, that must be why your so mean and hateful, in love of coarse.
You people are just flat out mean and hateful, in love of coarse. I thank you for your commits, but I will stand on the words of Christ not man, I meant mean and hateful men. If you don't want to believe Christ then don't just make something up. IF YOU DON'T EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU. I didn't say it, but Christ has said YOU have no life in you, that must be why your so mean and hateful, in love of coarse.
- Status