PDA

View Full Version : Please Help Need help on the Lord's Supper (Moved from CA)



dc53073
Jan 15th 2009, 06:40 PM
Hi All,

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but I am looking for a resource on the Lord's Supper. What I am looking for specifically is a book or article(s) that give the non real presence view of the Lord's Supper with Scriptural backing.

Most of the stuff I have read so far just state the position that TLS is symbolic.

I am new here, so if this is not the right place to post this, please let me know. :)

Thanks,
dc

Followtheway
Jan 15th 2009, 09:20 PM
"Pagan Christianity" dont let the name fool you it has alot about getting back to the way the first century church was

dc53073
Jan 15th 2009, 11:13 PM
I'll have to check that book out. Just curious. Is there an argument that says the "real presence" in TLS is a pagan influence in early Christianity, or is it simply a charge leveled at Roman Catholicism?

One of the frustrating things I have found, or actually not found, is a biblical argument for the symbolic view. I am having a difficult time finding a resource that explains "why" exactly that Jesus' words "This is my Body" is not to be taken in a literal sense.

So, any help is appreciated.

Thanks!

Teke
Jan 16th 2009, 12:50 AM
The term "real presence" is a Roman Catholic concept.
The more traditional view is that the sacrifice of Christ is re-presented (because it is eternal) in the bread and wine of the Eucharist (or "communion", if that is the term you use).

There was a man named Zwingli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli) that came up with the symbolic idea.
"The principles that guide Zwingli's interpretations are derived from his humanist education..." (quoted from article section on theology)

thethinker
Jan 16th 2009, 01:24 AM
Hi All,

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but I am looking for a resource on the Lord's Supper. What I am looking for specifically is a book or article(s) that give the non real presence view of the Lord's Supper with Scriptural backing.

Most of the stuff I have read so far just state the position that TLS is symbolic.

I am new here, so if this is not the right place to post this, please let me know. :)

Thanks,
dc

dc,
Spiritual or corporeal presence does not matter since the passover meal has been fulfilled in Christ. We're not bound to observe it today so just don't worry about it.

God bless,
thinker

Butch5
Jan 16th 2009, 01:26 AM
The term "real presence" is a Roman Catholic concept.
The more traditional view is that the sacrifice of Christ is re-presented (because it is eternal) in the bread and wine of the Eucharist (or "communion", if that is the term you use).

There was a man named Zwingli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli) that came up with the symbolic idea.
"The principles that guide Zwingli's interpretations are derived from his humanist education..." (quoted from article section on theology)

HI Teke,

I was under the impression that the Ante-Nicene fathers held to the real presence and that the Catholic view is transubstantiation.

Butch5
Jan 16th 2009, 01:45 AM
Hi All,

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but I am looking for a resource on the Lord's Supper. What I am looking for specifically is a book or article(s) that give the non real presence view of the Lord's Supper with Scriptural backing.

Most of the stuff I have read so far just state the position that TLS is symbolic.

I am new here, so if this is not the right place to post this, please let me know. :)

Thanks,
dc

Hi Dc,

I would suggest looking at the Ante-Nicene church fathers, you can read them at this site. You can also search them.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Followtheway
Jan 16th 2009, 02:11 AM
The book does go into alot of detail. In the old testament every important occasion was a feast and it just so happens that the last supper was during a feast, Jesus did become the passover lamb, but part of following the word "do this in memory of me" is celebrating his feast just like the 7 before it. We learn 2 things of why these feasts are important the first being that the Lord wants us to remember him, and the second being that he wants us to come together as a community. After all why should we have a full celebration for a pagan holiday like Christmas and no or little celebration for the forgiveness of our sins.

crossnote
Jan 16th 2009, 06:34 AM
Even the Ante-Nicene Fathers had varying views on the Supper.

Should the practice be regarded as optional as one poster suggested? Jesus said in the Words of Institution, "This do"
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luk 22:19)

When it comes to a 'symbolic' presence I don't think you will find scriptural support. At least Jesus did not say specifically, "This represents my Body"
I think the best approach is to hear Christ Words in the Supper as Words at face value without high falutent theological hoopla from every Tom Dick and Harry's interpretation. Those words are not to be dissected but cherished as is the Supper itself.

thethinker
Jan 16th 2009, 10:29 AM
Even the Ante-Nicene Fathers had varying views on the Supper.

Should the practice be regarded as optional as one poster suggested? Jesus said in the Words of Institution, "This do"
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luk 22:19)

When it comes to a 'symbolic' presence I don't think you will find scriptural support. At least Jesus did not say specifically, "This represents my Body"
I think the best approach is to hear Christ Words in the Supper as Words at face value without high falutent theological hoopla from every Tom Dick and Harry's interpretation. Those words are not to be dissected but cherished as is the Supper itself.

Christ's "This do" command applied only to His disciples in the upper room. Jesus said that He fervently desired to eat the passover with them before He suffered. He said, "I have desired to eat this passover with YOU before I suffer (Luke 22:14-20). Jesus expressed no fervent desire at all to eat with anyone else but His disciples.

Therefore, the "this do" command cannot be a mandate to anyone else after that. This is taking Christ's words at "face value" which Crossnote has correctly said is the "best approach". This means that the observance of the passover meal today is optional to us.

Then He said that he would eat it with them again when it is fulfilled in the kingdom. So at some point between His resurrection and ascension Jesus ate the passover again with His disciples and this indicated fulfillment to them. And when it was fulfilled it was no longer binding.

This also is taking Christ's words at "face value".

Toymom
Jan 16th 2009, 01:39 PM
One of the frustrating things I have found, or actually not found, is a biblical argument for the symbolic view. I am having a difficult time finding a resource that explains "why" exactly that Jesus' words "This is my Body" is not to be taken in a literal sense.

So, any help is appreciated.

Thanks!
Well, if you look at Jesus's own words - he tells us that there is no profit in actual flesh, but it is His words that are spirit and life to us:

JN 6:63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life.

And also, Jesus Himself told us to eat the bread and wine in remberance of Him, which again appears to be a symbolic act:

ServantofTruth
Jan 16th 2009, 02:20 PM
Hi All,

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but I am looking for a resource on the Lord's Supper. What I am looking for specifically is a book or article(s) that give the non real presence view of the Lord's Supper with Scriptural backing.

Most of the stuff I have read so far just state the position that TLS is symbolic.

I am new here, so if this is not the right place to post this, please let me know. :)

Thanks,
dc


Much around Communion comes from man's thinking rather than biblical understanding. Most books will be written by a person who is in a denomination - not many non christians writing on this would be my guess, and their opinion wouldn't be Spirit led.

We can all back our opinions with scriptures.

I wounder if anyone knows of a book with chapters written by people of different denominations or jointly by a few churches?

I know people who take communion every day, some insist once a week, some say once a month, others are adament the bible makes it clear once a year. Some are very laid back, whenever the pastor feels like it.

Like previous posters, my friends here, I agree that the bread and wine represent the body and blood, please don't go down the road of thinking they become the body and blood. To me that is plain error. Love SofTy.

Teke
Jan 16th 2009, 04:55 PM
HI Teke,

I was under the impression that the Ante-Nicene fathers held to the real presence and that the Catholic view is transubstantiation.

They did, but they didn't mean that in the sense of the Catholic understanding of "transubstantiation".

Basically it's a semantic argument, not a substance one. It is a 'mystery' in all reality.

Butch5
Jan 16th 2009, 05:46 PM
Christ's "This do" command applied only to His disciples in the upper room. Jesus said that He fervently desired to eat the passover with them before He suffered. He said, "I have desired to eat this passover with YOU before I suffer (Luke 22:14-20). Jesus expressed no fervent desire at all to eat with anyone else but His disciples.

Therefore, the "this do" command cannot be a mandate to anyone else after that. This is taking Christ's words at "face value" which Crossnote has correctly said is the "best approach". This means that the observance of the passover meal today is optional to us.

Then He said that he would eat it with them again when it is fulfilled in the kingdom. So at some point between His resurrection and ascension Jesus ate the passover again with His disciples and this indicated fulfillment to them. And when it was fulfilled it was no longer binding.

This also is taking Christ's words at "face value".

However, let's consider another of Christ's commandments at face value.
This also ws spoken to the apostles,

Matthew 28:19-20 ( KJV ) 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Butch5
Jan 16th 2009, 05:49 PM
They did, but they didn't mean that in the sense of the Catholic understanding of "transubstantiation".

Basically it's a semantic argument, not a substance one. It is a 'mystery' in all reality.

OK, I understand the Ante's to have held to the real presence position.

thethinker
Jan 16th 2009, 06:10 PM
They did, but they didn't mean that in the sense of the Catholic understanding of "transubstantiation".

Basically it's a semantic argument, not a substance one. It is a 'mystery' in all reality.

dc,,
There is no "mystery" about it all. Jesus observed the passover meal with His disciples to show them that He Himself was the fulfillment of the passover. Therefore, the expression "this is My body" or "this is My blood" simply means that I am the FULFILLMENT of the Passover. That's it! It's so simple!

If I were to say to you that Christ IS Moses would you wonder what I meant? Would you engage in "semantics" over it? No you would not. You would know immediately that I meant to say that Christ is the fulfillment of Moses. And why would you know my meaning so quickly? The answer: Because two thousand years of garbage did not come between me and you and the words I spoke to you. So when the disciples heard Jesus say to them "this is My body" they knew He was saying that He Himself was the fulfillment of the passover. They didn't have two thousand years of rubbish to decipher.

That's it my friend! Jesus is the fulfillment of the passover. That's exactly what He meant in saying "this is My body".

thinker

BroRog
Jan 16th 2009, 06:11 PM
I'll have to check that book out. Just curious. Is there an argument that says the "real presence" in TLS is a pagan influence in early Christianity, or is it simply a charge leveled at Roman Catholicism?

One of the frustrating things I have found, or actually not found, is a biblical argument for the symbolic view. I am having a difficult time finding a resource that explains "why" exactly that Jesus' words "This is my Body" is not to be taken in a literal sense.

So, any help is appreciated.

Thanks!

Not trying to be funny here, but have you ever seen that PSA about not taking drugs?

The announcer holds up an egg and says, "This is your brain." Then the egg is cracked open and put into a hot frying pan. The announcer says, "This is your brain on drugs."

The illustration works as a metaphor in which two unrelated things, i.e. an egg and a brain are associated with each other in such a way as to be highly descriptive of the damage that drugs can do to a brain. Obviously, the statement "this is your brain" is not to be taken literally. Even if the announcer held up a real brain, it wouldn't be MY brain (I don't think. Maybe I should look into this.) Anyway . . .

When Jesus said, "this is my body" he was doing the same kind of thing. Those sitting at the dinner table saw Jesus raise a piece of bread, not literally his own body. He is making an analogy.

It's as if Jesus is saying, "Just as we break this bread to commemorate our freedom from bondage in Egypt, I am allowing my body to be broken to free you all from bondage to sin."

Teke
Jan 16th 2009, 09:45 PM
OK, I understand the Ante's to have held to the real presence position.

They did. Like I said it's semantics. His real presence is at the altar, the altar being His throne we present ourselves before Him at on the Lord's Day, as well as being the tomb of resurrection just to mention a few things. IOW there is a lot of meaning in their meaning of "real presence". Literally speaking they mean He is present.

Teke
Jan 16th 2009, 09:56 PM
dc,,
There is no "mystery" about it all. Jesus observed the passover meal with His disciples to show them that He Himself was the fulfillment of the passover. Therefore, the expression "this is My body" or "this is My blood" simply means that I am the FULFILLMENT of the Passover. That's it! It's so simple!

If I were to say to you that Christ IS Moses would you wonder what I meant? Would you engage in "semantics" over it? No you would not. You would know immediately that I meant to say that Christ is the fulfillment of Moses. And why would you know my meaning so quickly? The answer: Because two thousand years of garbage did not come between me and you and the words I spoke to you. So when the disciples heard Jesus say to them "this is My body" they knew He was saying that He Himself was the fulfillment of the passover. They didn't have two thousand years of rubbish to decipher.

That's it my friend! Jesus is the fulfillment of the passover. That's exactly what He meant in saying "this is My body".

thinker

I believe you have left a few things out of your conclusion.
Christians don't celebrate the national Jewish holy day Passover (that is not to say they can't celebrate it). That belongs to them as it recalls for them how God was faithful in bringing them out of Egypt.

Then you have Jesus clearly saying, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Jhn 6:53 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.Jhn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."

He is referring to Himself being the sustenance of life. Which is what bread and wine represent.

As to this being a one time event. How does one put such a label on what has no beginning or end?

The "mystery" part is because we cannot explain how the Holy Spirit does this. The Holy Spirit is called upon to make the bread and wine the eternal sacrifice of Christ, which is the only acceptable sacrifice of the altar to God.

thethinker
Jan 16th 2009, 10:13 PM
I believe you have left a few things out of your conclusion.
Christians don't celebrate the national Jewish holy day Passover (that is not to say they can't celebrate it). That belongs to them as it recalls for them how God was faithful in bringing them out of Egypt.
Jesus was observing the passover with the disciples who were Jews. He was pointing to the fact that He was the fulfillment of the passover.

They were in the upper room on the passover observing the passover. It's so simple!

Blessings,
thinker

dc53073
Jan 17th 2009, 02:58 AM
Not trying to be funny here, but have you ever seen that PSA about not taking drugs?

The announcer holds up an egg and says, "This is your brain." Then the egg is cracked open and put into a hot frying pan. The announcer says, "This is your brain on drugs."

The illustration works as a metaphor in which two unrelated things, i.e. an egg and a brain are associated with each other in such a way as to be highly descriptive of the damage that drugs can do to a brain. Obviously, the statement "this is your brain" is not to be taken literally. Even if the announcer held up a real brain, it wouldn't be MY brain (I don't think. Maybe I should look into this.) Anyway . . .

When Jesus said, "this is my body" he was doing the same kind of thing. Those sitting at the dinner table saw Jesus raise a piece of bread, not literally his own body. He is making an analogy.

It's as if Jesus is saying, "Just as we break this bread to commemorate our freedom from bondage in Egypt, I am allowing my body to be broken to free you all from bondage to sin."

Thanks for the illustration! I appreciate it. That is a good one, I'll have to remember it.

I have located a couple of books that should help. One is by Wayne Grudem (sp?) on systematic theology and the other is "Four Views on the Lord's Supper. Both of those should help.

I really would like to find something that goes into the linguistics on the relevant passages. Personally, I understand the symbolic view. I find it frustrating tho that it is often stated as being obvious and is rarely defended in print by those who hold it, using scripture and not merely logic or nice illustrations.

I don't think it being obvious is going to be good enough, at least for my purposes. I will need to document via scripture exactly why it is so.

Thanks for the help!

reformedct
Jan 17th 2009, 04:05 AM
I'll have to check that book out. Just curious. Is there an argument that says the "real presence" in TLS is a pagan influence in early Christianity, or is it simply a charge leveled at Roman Catholicism?

One of the frustrating things I have found, or actually not found, is a biblical argument for the symbolic view. I am having a difficult time finding a resource that explains "why" exactly that Jesus' words "This is my Body" is not to be taken in a literal sense.

So, any help is appreciated.

Thanks!

i just think we should do it in remembrance of Him, to remember that He gave His body and blood for our sins:cool:

crossnote
Jan 17th 2009, 07:08 AM
Christ's "This do" command applied only to His disciples in the upper room. Jesus said that He fervently desired to eat the passover with them before He suffered. He said, "I have desired to eat this passover with YOU before I suffer (Luke 22:14-20). Jesus expressed no fervent desire at all to eat with anyone else but His disciples.

Therefore, the "this do" command cannot be a mandate to anyone else after that. This is taking Christ's words at "face value" which Crossnote has correctly said is the "best approach". This means that the observance of the passover meal today is optional to us.

Then He said that he would eat it with them again when it is fulfilled in the kingdom. So at some point between His resurrection and ascension Jesus ate the passover again with His disciples and this indicated fulfillment to them. And when it was fulfilled it was no longer binding.

This also is taking Christ's words at "face value".

Funny thing, Paul reiterates Jesus' Words of Institution to the Corinthian Church and with warnings to those who eat unworthily.

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
(1Co 11:24-25)

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
(1Co 11:29)

Besides why rob your self of this special gift by dispensationalizing it to another age?

thethinker
Jan 17th 2009, 10:44 AM
Funny thing, Paul reiterates Jesus' Words of Institution to the Corinthian Church and with warnings to those who eat unworthily.

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
(1Co 11:24-25)

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
(1Co 11:29)

Besides why rob your self of this special gift by dispensationalizing it to another age?


Hey Crossnote,
I should not have brought up my views about the Passover having been finished. DC's question was about the the real presence versus the spiritual presence debate. I did answer that though. Christ simply meant that He was the fulfillment of the passover. It was never about any "presence" at all.

But I still maintain that the passover is finished in Christ and therefore the observance of it is optional for us rather than a mandate. I don't rob myself. I observe the passover.

Paul 's reference to Christ's saying "this do" in its context was NOT a command to the Corinthians. He was telling them Christ's exact words to His disciples concerning the manner in which Jesus wanted His disciples to observe the meal with Him.

But Paul said to them:


"As often as you may eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes' (v.26).

The subjunctive mood "may" is the permissive. Commands are usually written in the imperative mood. Paul wouldn't even have discussed the Lord's supper with them at all had they been observing it properly. If they were going to observe it they must observe it in the proper manner because they were proclaiming the Lord's death to the world.

Paul said that a man didn't have to participate with others but he may eat in his own home,


"But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment". If the observance of the Lord's supper is a mandate now, then it has not been fulfilled. But it has been fulfilled.

God speed,
thinker

dc53073
Jan 17th 2009, 11:47 AM
i just think we should do it in remembrance of Him, to remember that He gave His body and blood for our sins:cool:

Hi,

Your post is a perfect illustration of what I am talking about. I have to write about the real presence vs. symbolic view of the Lord's Supper. On the real presence side, I have run across many resources that use the Bible to make the case for the real presence.

On the symbolic side, I read in many places where the author just states the position WITHOUT explaining WHY they hold the position. It is simply assumed to be true.

So let me ask you: Why do you believe that the words "do this in remembrance of Me" hold more weight than "This is my Body, etc"?

Is it because you have been taught that all of your life? Have you read some book or paper that made a convincing argument in favor of that position? Do you have special revelation?

Please, I am not trying to be mean or anything like that. I am simply trying to find documentation that explains the symbolic view using the Biblical text. If you have run across a book, article, or website that exegetes the relevant passages in your spiritual journey, I would love to know what they are so I can look them up.

Thanks for your response! :)

Teke
Jan 17th 2009, 02:42 PM
But I still maintain that the passover is finished in Christ and therefore the observance of it is optional for us rather than a mandate. I don't rob myself. I observe the passover.

Paul 's reference to Christ's saying "this do" in its context was NOT a command to the Corinthians. He was telling them Christ's exact words to His disciples concerning the manner in which Jesus wanted His disciples to observe the meal with Him.

But Paul said to them:



The subjunctive mood "may" is the permissive. Commands are usually written in the imperative mood. Paul wouldn't even have discussed the Lord's supper with them at all had they been observing it properly. If they were going to observe it they must observe it in the proper manner because they were proclaiming the Lord's death to the world.

Paul said that a man didn't have to participate with others but he may eat in his own home,

If the observance of the Lord's supper is a mandate now, then it has not been fulfilled. But it has been fulfilled.

God speed,
thinker

In reference to "remembrance" the Greek word is "anamnesis" and means far more than thinking back about something, it is participation in it.

Also the Greek word used for "proclaim" is one of those synonymous words for preach, it's "katangello", meaning, to bring word down to anyone, bring it home by setting it forth.

So basically this amounts to participate in proclaiming Him in this manner.

thethinker
Jan 17th 2009, 04:32 PM
In reference to "remembrance" the Greek word is "anamnesis" and means far more than thinking back about something, it is participation in it.

Also the Greek word used for "proclaim" is one of those synonymous words for preach, it's "katangello", meaning, to bring word down to anyone, bring it home by setting it forth.

So basically this amounts to participate in proclaiming Him in this manner.

Teke,
I agree with all you say above unless you mean to infer a mandate. Then I would take exception. I said in a previous post today that participation in the Lord's meal was a proclamation of His death to the "world". But I doubt this now because Paul said that a man may eat in the privacy of His own home (v. 34).

How would a man be proclaiming to the "world" if he would be observing the passover in the privacy of his own home? :hmm:

Your friend,
thinker

reformedct
Jan 17th 2009, 05:10 PM
Hi,

Your post is a perfect illustration of what I am talking about. I have to write about the real presence vs. symbolic view of the Lord's Supper. On the real presence side, I have run across many resources that use the Bible to make the case for the real presence.

On the symbolic side, I read in many places where the author just states the position WITHOUT explaining WHY they hold the position. It is simply assumed to be true.

So let me ask you: Why do you believe that the words "do this in remembrance of Me" hold more weight than "This is my Body, etc"?

Is it because you have been taught that all of your life? Have you read some book or paper that made a convincing argument in favor of that position? Do you have special revelation?

Please, I am not trying to be mean or anything like that. I am simply trying to find documentation that explains the symbolic view using the Biblical text. If you have run across a book, article, or website that exegetes the relevant passages in your spiritual journey, I would love to know what they are so I can look them up.

Thanks for your response! :)


lol because everytime i have taken communion the bread was still bread and the juice was still juice. Now if i prayed and then the bread started being chewy and fleshy in my mouth i would say it is actually His body lol


and to the comments of Jesus fulfilling the Passover. Yes He is the fulfillment, meaning the Passover was symbolic of Jesus. However that does not mean that Christians never do TLS, because why would the apostles still be talking to Gentiles about doing TLS? for example if they did not have to do it why were people getting drunk off the wine in Corinth? They wouldnt be doing it right?

thethinker
Jan 17th 2009, 05:32 PM
and to the comments of Jesus fulfilling the Passover. Yes He is the fulfillment, meaning the Passover was symbolic of Jesus. However that does not mean that Christians never do TLS, because why would the apostles still be talking to Gentiles about doing TLS? for example if they did not have to do it why were people getting drunk off the wine in Corinth? They wouldnt be doing it right?

Reformedct,
Do you mean to say that Jesus was not the fulfillment of the Passover? Just asking. I can't imagine that a believer would think that Christ did not fulfill all things in his behalf unless he is so immersed in the two thousand years of interpretative rubbish he has inherited and that his father was a bad guy.

No one has said that Christians should never take the supper. Scroll up and read again. It was said only that it is "optional". There is a difference.

BTW, where in the Bible do you find the apostles talking to "Gentiles" about the supper. The only reference to the supper by an apostle is from Paul. He was correcting the abuses of Jewish Christians.

blessings,
thinker

reformedct
Jan 17th 2009, 05:36 PM
Reformedct,
Do you mean to say that Jesus was not the fulfillment of the Passover? Just asking. I can't imagine that a believer would think that Christ did not fulfill all things in his behalf unless he is so immersed in the two thousand years of rubbish he has inherited and that his father was a bad guy.

No one has said that Christians should never take the supper. Scroll up and read again. It was said only that it is "optional". There is a difference.

BTW, where in the Bible do you find the apostles talking to "Gentiles" about the supper. The only reference to the supper by an apostle is from Paul. He was correcting the abuses of Jewish Christians.

blessings,
thinker

yes Jesus fulfilled it but when He says "this do in remembrance of Me" my interpretation is that this is for all who follow Him, not just Jews. Im sure you will disagree but that is my interpretation

thethinker
Jan 17th 2009, 06:05 PM
yes Jesus fulfilled it but when He says "this do in remembrance of Me" my interpretation is that this is for all who follow Him, not just Jews. Im sure you will disagree but that is my interpretation

Reformedct,
I love you maan! And I know you love Jesus. But please prove your interpretation. Paul did not take Jesus' words to His disciples and make them a mandate to the Corinthians.

Paul said that they may observe it. This is not a command. How could Paul say that a man may eat in his own home if it was a command? However, there was a command from Paul. He said that the man who would observe the supper must do so in the manner that Jesus observed it with His disciples. This is the command! Jesus loves you whether you observe it or not. And there is no obedience versus disobedience issue involved.

thinker

Ta-An
Jan 17th 2009, 06:14 PM
dc,,
There is no "mystery" about it all. Jesus observed the passover meal with His disciples to show them that He Himself was the fulfillment of the passover. Therefore, the expression "this is My body" or "this is My blood" simply means that I am the FULFILLMENT of the Passover. That's it! It's so simple!

If I were to say to you that Christ IS Moses would you wonder what I meant? Would you engage in "semantics" over it? No you would not. You would know immediately that I meant to say that Christ is the fulfillment of Moses. And why would you know my meaning so quickly? The answer: Because two thousand years of garbage did not come between me and you and the words I spoke to you. So when the disciples heard Jesus say to them "this is My body" they knew He was saying that He Himself was the fulfillment of the passover. They didn't have two thousand years of rubbish to decipher.

That's it my friend! Jesus is the fulfillment of the passover. That's exactly what He meant in saying "this is My body".

thinkerWhat I'd like to add to this: when He says:"this is My body". He does refer to the lamb that was slain at Passover, and also the same for the blood over the doorpost.... He IS the Passover Lamb :pp

Teke
Jan 17th 2009, 09:31 PM
Teke,
I agree with all you say above unless you mean to infer a mandate. Then I would take exception. I said in a previous post today that participation in the Lord's meal was a proclamation of His death to the "world". But I doubt this now because Paul said that a man may eat in the privacy of His own home (v. 34).

How would a man be proclaiming to the "world" if he would be observing the passover in the privacy of his own home? :hmm:

Your friend,
thinker

Thinker,
I would not call the holy Eucharist a "mandate" or "law".

Verse 34 is further info from verse 33 which says, 'when you come together to eat, wait for one another'.

The Agape meal, connected with the Eucharist, was conducted with the same dignity as the Eucharist.

Even today we have some Christian groups who believe in eating nothing after midnight the day before they come together and partake of the Eucharist and then have the Agape meal. While others do not hold to such.
In the case of the Corinthians it would seem that Paul is trying to restore some order to this situation. So he's telling them if they can't wait to eat with everyone else, then eat at home beforehand and that will help in not upsetting others who haven't eaten yet because they are waiting for everyone to be together before they do.

thethinker
Jan 17th 2009, 10:02 PM
In the case of the Corinthians it would seem that Paul is trying to restore some order to this situation. So he's telling them if they can't wait to eat with everyone else, then eat at home beforehand and that will help in not upsetting others who haven't eaten yet because they are waiting for everyone to be together before they do.

Exactly! The command was to observe the supper in an orderly fashion. That's quite different from a command to observe it. Thanks Teke ;)

thinker

BroRog
Jan 18th 2009, 12:13 AM
I really would like to find something that goes into the linguistics on the relevant passages. Personally, I understand the symbolic view. I find it frustrating tho that it is often stated as being obvious and is rarely defended in print by those who hold it, using scripture and not merely logic or nice illustrations.

To be frank, there is no way to resolve the dispute linguistically because language itself is just too fluid, to ambiguous, to pliable, too flexible. The sentence "this is my body" can have five or ten different meanings depending on the context.

1. A body builder picks up his arms in a triumphant pose and says, "this is my body."

2. A child draws a self-portrait with crayons. She shows her mother what she drew. "See mom, here is my head, and this is my body."

3. A meeting of the entire school was being held in the auditorium, and the principle was heard to exclaim, "this is my body."

4. In the design studio of a car manufacturer a group of designers were standing around a new car. As the designer of this new car explained the new features of his design he was heard to say, "this is my new chassis, and this is my body."

5. We pass by the open door of a class for English as a second language to hear the teacher say, "this is my body. baw dee. baw dee. body."

The meaning of any sentence derives it's source from the context into which that sentence was uttered or written.

thethinker
Jan 18th 2009, 01:13 AM
To be frank, there is no way to resolve the dispute linguistically because language itself is just too fluid, to ambiguous, to pliable, too flexible. The sentence "this is my body" can have five or ten different meanings depending on the context.
In other words, whenever God spoke a word to men they could not know what He meant. So just go and live a promiscious life and don't worry about it because when God spoke He had five or ten different meanings in view. He can't judge anyone because He chose to communicate through the "ambiguous".

The problem is not with language. It is with 2,000 years of gobbledygook and sinful commentary. God spoke clearly to Adam. But satan came along manipulating language and said that "God did not say". It's been this way ever since.

Put the blame on sinful man where it belongs. To blame language is a kop out.

think about it,
thinker

BroRog
Jan 18th 2009, 06:16 PM
In other words, whenever God spoke a word to men they could not know what He meant. So just go and live a promiscious life and don't worry about it because when God spoke He had five or ten different meanings in view. He can't judge anyone because He chose to communicate through the "ambiguous".

No, I'm sorry I was so confusing. That is not an implication of what I meant to say. I'm not suggesting for a minute that we can't know what the Bible means to say. I believe we CAN know what the Bible means to say.

I should have been more clear, I guess. I wasn't speaking in general terms about the entire Bible. My comments were focused specifically on our record of the dialog in the upper room. I was trying to make the point that our efforts to discern the objective meaning of Jesus statement "this is my body", semantics will not help us much. I believe the art of pragmatics* will serve us better.


* the analysis of language in terms of the situational context within which utterances are made, including the knowledge and beliefs of the speaker and the relation between speaker and listener.

Dictionary.com


The problem is not with language. It is with 2,000 years of gobbledygook and sinful commentary. God spoke clearly to Adam. But satan came along manipulating language and said that "God did not say". It's been this way ever since.

Put the blame on sinful man where it belongs. To blame language is a kop out.

think about it,
thinkerI wouldn't immediately disagree with you here. I can admit to being a sinner and a fallible human being. And so, anyone who reads my explanations must judge for themselves whether my explanation makes sense.

Teke
Jan 18th 2009, 09:48 PM
It is with 2,000 years of gobbledygook and sinful commentary. God spoke clearly to Adam. But satan came along manipulating language and said that "God did not say". It's been this way ever since.

Put the blame on sinful man where it belongs. To blame language is a kop out.

think about it,
thinker

By "2,000 yrs of gobbledygook" I assume you mean sinful men departing from original Apostolic teachings and listening to the devil. Because IMHO the Apostles didn't teach "gobbledygood".
IOW Jesus didn't establish a church on "gobbledygook". And He didn't write it down for the Apostles. So somewhere along the lines, some departed from the true teachings.

Teke
Jan 18th 2009, 10:00 PM
Hi,

Your post is a perfect illustration of what I am talking about. I have to write about the real presence vs. symbolic view of the Lord's Supper. On the real presence side, I have run across many resources that use the Bible to make the case for the real presence.

On the symbolic side, I read in many places where the author just states the position WITHOUT explaining WHY they hold the position. It is simply assumed to be true.

So let me ask you: Why do you believe that the words "do this in remembrance of Me" hold more weight than "This is my Body, etc"?

Is it because you have been taught that all of your life? Have you read some book or paper that made a convincing argument in favor of that position? Do you have special revelation?

Please, I am not trying to be mean or anything like that. I am simply trying to find documentation that explains the symbolic view using the Biblical text. If you have run across a book, article, or website that exegetes the relevant passages in your spiritual journey, I would love to know what they are so I can look them up.

Thanks for your response! :)

Dc53073,
You may not have access yet, but I did a thread with background info on this subject in the Contro forum on this board. Here (title "presence in communion") (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=37650) is the link if your able to access it.
At least you can explore the differing aspects that influenced the thoughts of men on this subject.