Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | Perceval96 | 84958 | ||
I'm not sure I follow. Money *is* a symbol (a coin is a token, a note is a promise). It would help me if you could put your point in other terms. In addition, I could not follow your reasoning in "Since the covenant that Jesus instituted is the Lords Supper, that same presence must be manifest in the elements of the covenant". I didn't think the covenant was the supper, and I didn't see where the "must" came from, especially since Jesus named the (let's call them) equivalences before his body was crucified and his blood was shed. Help me out here, please. |
||||||
2 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | dschaertel | 85027 | ||
Jesus' words in verse 25 of 1Corinthians 11 says that "this cup is the new covenant in my blood". It is with the cup of Communion that he establishes his covenant. As for the why he must be present... the incarnation is what makes Christianity different from any other religion. The idea that God took on the form of a man, not that man was a god. We believe in the incarnation. God said in the presence of the human Jesus "this is my som in whom I am well pleased". The fact that Jesus declared the bread to be his body and the wine to be his blood while still present in no way prevents it from being literally true. God took on human form and Christ takes on the form of bread and wine when offered in the context of Holy Communion. The check is worthless until it is signed by the owner of the money. Then the money takes on the form of the check. The chekc doesn't actually become gold which is in it self just another "token". But effectually the money takes on the form of the check. Likewise the sacrificial body and blood of Christ Jesus takes on the form of bread and wine. When we partake of it in a worhy manner, that is discerning the body of the Lord, we then are united as the body of Christ. If we say that the bread and wine are merely symbols then we are saying that they have no effect other than what we bring to it. There is no forgiveness of sins apart from our own contribution. But if we recognize that the body and blood are truely present to us in the form of bread and wine, the forgiveness of sins is already accomplished. Paul says in 1Corinthians 10:16 This cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a distribution of the blood of Christ. This bread that we break, is it not a distribution of the body of Christ. |
||||||
3 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | Perceval96 | 85049 | ||
You wrote: "Jesus' words in verse 25 of 1Corinthians 11 says that "this cup is the new covenant in my blood". It is with the cup of Communion that he establishes his covenant." Only if 'cup is covenant' (your first sentence) is taken symbolically can your second sentence avoid saying 'Jesus established the covenant with the covenant'. I disagree with neither of your sentences, separately or together -- only with your unstated conclusion. In asking where the "must" came from, I was suggesting that your remark, "Since the covenant that Jesus instituted is the Lords Supper, that same presence must be manifest in the elements of the covenant", was a non-sequitur. As far as I understand your new note -- in essence assertion rather than an argued case -- I now feel sure it is a non-sequitur. This is my first foray onto this board, which I thought was about questions and answers on Bible verses and passages. I'm not up for doctrine wars, and I do wonder how much all this stuff is really helpful (or even meant to be helpful) to the enquirer, proffitt_79? Forgive me, please, if I sit this one out! |
||||||
4 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | proffitt_79 | 85633 | ||
Thank you Perceval96 for your input on this controversial subject. in no way did i mean to start a doctrinal war, but i do find different interpretations of Holy Scripture fascinating. I welcome input from and based on different Christian doctrine. Your reluctance to participate in doctrinal debate is understandable and noted. so many use doctrine as a sword to destroy one's faith where it should be used as brick and mortar to build each other up in faith. Let us never lose sight of the fact that no matter what doctrine one ascribes to, the absolute most important thing is one's spiritual walk and relationship with Jesus Christ. | ||||||
5 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | Radioman2 | 85635 | ||
You write: "Let us never lose sight of the fact that no matter what doctrine one ascribes to, the absolute most important thing is one's spiritual walk and relationship with Jesus Christ." I hope you do not mean to say that you can believe anything you want to, as long as you believe in Jesus -- that it doesn't matter what doctrine you believe, as long as you're in a relationship with Christ. I hope that's not what you're saying because doctrine does matter. If one were to believe false, bad doctrine (teaching), that would have a negative impact on his spiritual walk and relationship. What we believe affects every area of our lives. |
||||||