Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
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 | 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. |
||||||
2 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | dschaertel | 84941 | ||
Even taking the body as the church doesn't exempt one from understanding the idea of the true presence of Christ in the form of bread and wine. The church according to Paul is the "body of Christ". I accept that as quite literally true. Since the covenant that Jesus instituted is the Lords Supper, that same presence must be manifest in the elements of the covenant. Take for example the writing of a check. Obviously it isn't cash money, yet when authorized by the one who owns the money, it becomes money to the person it is made out to. It is in the form of a check, but it is effectually money. Not merely a symbol. |
||||||
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 | CDBJ | 84991 | ||
To suggest that Jesus was condoning cannibalism was and is to those that twist the Scripture, a great problem and a supposed contradiction of Scripture IF it were true. Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. The Scripture in John is easily twisted by those that say Jesus body actually comes from the bread and his blood from the wine; just as those that said it is a hard saying, which, is the next thing to a parable, and unbelievers didn’t understand parables either. John 6:53-58 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. Those that think that the bread and wine actually turns into Jesus body and blood are as deceived today as those that couldn’t understand what Christ was saying in John at the time. John 6:60-61 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? They key is, who can hear it or how can one make any sense out of this? The great thinker said, I get it, it must happen when we take communion. (NOT) Jesus had to explain this to them the same way he did to Nicodemus, who couldn’t understand things in the spirit either but thought in terms of the flesh. John 6:63-64 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. Jesus is the Word, and that is what we need to eat and metabolize the elements of communion are only a ritual that points in two directions, back to Christ’s death and forward to His coming again. 1 Cor. 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. It is the AMEN in the Christian's life. Notice it didn’t say that this is how Christ gets in you!!! Those that will argue this point won’t find this out until it’s too late for them, unless the Lord opens their eyes to the truth. John 6:66-69 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Peter had the answer, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the (words) of eternal life. It is the Spirit that quickens not our participating in the Lord’s Table! Transubstantiation is the same as cannibalism and it isn’t Scriptural or biblical!!!! I hope this helps, CDBJ |
||||||
5 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | Emmaus | 85005 | ||
CDBJ: "Transubstantiation is the same as cannibalism and it isn’t Scriptural or biblical!!!! " The above statement is a bigoted,inflamatory and bald faced lie! There is no other way to describe it. Your ignorance of Christian history is astounding. The charge of cannibalism is the same charge that was made against the earliest Christians, who belived in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Because they professed trhat the Eucharist was indeed the body and blood of Christ, this charge was made against them. Here is what the earliest Christians taught as received from the apostles. The history of Christianity from the begining until the reformation affirms this doctrine. You even have to twist St Paul's Letter to the Corinthians to read this doctrine out of his teaching. Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1). Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20). Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3). Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9). In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1). The larger part of chritianity in the world, Orthodox and Cathlic hold to this doctrine. Even the Lutherans hold to Consubstantiation and Anglicans also hold to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In John 6, Judas, in his heart, was among the disciples who turned away after they found this teaching too hard and he decided to betray Christ. John 6:66-71 Emmaus |
||||||
6 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | CDBJ | 85012 | ||
Good luck? | ||||||
7 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | DAIRYLEADER5 | 85016 | ||
those who partake in communion are of one body with Christ,and form the church,see, cpt 12;13, vs. 29 and 30 is concerning thoses who are unworthy to partake in communion, communion is the comandment of, Christ and if you look at vs.1 and 2 its also reeterated by Paul. i hope this helps.its not only symbolic but its a whole lot more. its a commandment. | ||||||
8 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | CDBJ | 85044 | ||
Thank you for your answer, and most on the forum would agree with you. The main crux of the topic was that some supposed Christian Faiths, try to lead their constituents to believe that the bread and wine of communion is actually turned into the body and blood of Christ by the priest at each mass. The fact is, even the priesthood was done away with when the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom. There is no need for a priest today because Jesus himself is our high priest and we are told to come boldly to the throne of grace on our own, Jesus is our mediator. 1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; The whole false system, in question, condones human works, and there are millions who succumb to it’s alluring substitution and really never come to the realization of a personal relationship with the living Christ; they are overcome and pacified by all the ritual to the point that it is even called their obligation! It all sound great with the pomp and ceremony but it is ritual with out reality. There are some on this forum who will hold it up to the very end and very few will doubt or confront them or say a word against it even though they know it is wrong. It is my firm opinion that it is easer to point an atheist to the saving work of Jesus, then it is to show those of the Romanist persuasion that they are so near yet so far off. CDBJ |
||||||