Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Need help on the Lord's Supper (Moved from CA)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Please Help Need help on the Lord's Supper (Moved from CA)

    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

  • #2
    "Pagan Christianity" dont let the name fool you it has alot about getting back to the way the first century church was

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for the reply...

      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!

      Comment


      • #4
        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 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)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dc53073 View Post
          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

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Teke View Post
            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 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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dc53073 View Post
              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

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.
                  ♪ Each day may Christ become clearer, His Cross dearer, Our Hope nearer. ♫

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by crossnote View Post
                    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".

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dc53073 View Post
                      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:
                      ...be strengthened with power through His Spirit into the inner man, that Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith, that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be full of strength to apprehend with all the saints what the breadth and length and height and depth are and to know the knowledge-surpassing love of Christ, that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God. Eph. 3:16-19

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dc53073 View Post
                        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.
                        1 Corinthians 1:12-13 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

                        Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptised in the name of Paul?

                        KJV

                        May the power of the Spirit of our God unite us. SofTy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Butch5 View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by thethinker View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Teke View Post
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X