Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Perceval96 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | Perceval96 | 85053 | ||
Although this was linked as a reply to me, I did not even mention transsubstantation, let alone equate it with cannibalism. Although I believe the elements are symbols, to characterise those who disagree with me as condoning cannibalism would be tendentious and impolite. | ||||||
2 | 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! |
||||||
3 | 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. |
||||||
4 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | Perceval96 | 84938 | ||
The passage 11.23-32 (which contains your verse) comes between two other passages about disunity in celebrating the Lord's Supper (11.17-22 and 11.33-34), the last of which seems to me to sum up a complete argument. If you read your verse in this wider context, it might lead you to conclude that the body in 11.29 is the ecclesia as the body of Christ. (Paul has already referred to the body in this sense in 6.15, and will use the metaphor extensively in 12.12 onwards.) The above is how I have always read (and preached) the passage. I, too, come from a tradition that regards the Lord's Supper as a symbolic act, a memorial. Against the spirit-infused interpretation you mention (which presumably identifies the body in v29 with the body in v24) I suggest it is relevant that the body is only eaten and not drunk. Of course, Paul does not always argue neatly, but on the whole I find more coherence in taking the body as the ecclesia. Hope this helps. |
||||||