This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19

[Matt Black]

Well, I meant "trying", not "tying", if that's what threw you off.
Otherwise, it's pretty clear.
The RCC's will argue for transubstantiation, and since RCC is the more popular advocate of some sort of "real presence", this is why some people here keep attacking transubstantiation. So others who are not RCC yet believe in "real presence" (Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopalians, don't forget EOC, etc) use the ECF's, yet keep disclaiming transubstantiation; but the ECF's taken literally to prove "real presence" will lead to RCC "Transubstantiation", because there is clearly a claim of a "change" in the elements, not some nondescript "presence" "in", or "under" them.

Well, that's your interpretation; as you can see, Eliyahu interprets the ECFs differently and more ambiguously and, for once, I'm inclined to agree with him . That's why I said earlier that I'm happy to be agnostic on the subject of exactly how Christ is Really Present in communion (physically? spiritually? both?) - that's a matter for God; all I know is that in receiving the bread and wine, I receive Jesus - and He receives me. I'm more than happy to leave it at that.

 

[Matt Black]

The problem here is that in the incarnation and the other miracles; it was a Person who was present in ojects, not other objects present in objects.

...which is exactly what is happening with the RP in communion - a Person, Jesus Christ, is present in objects, in this case bread and wine. Why is that so different from the Incarnation and so difficult for you?

Oh, and DT, :applause: :thumbs:

 

[Eliyahu]

Well, that's your interpretation; as you can see, Eliyahu interprets the ECFs differently and more ambiguously and, for once, I'm inclined to agree with him . That's why I said earlier that I'm happy to be agnostic on the subject of exactly how Christ is Really Present in communion (physically? spiritually? both?) - that's a matter for God; all I know is that in receiving the bread and wine, I receive Jesus - and He receives me. I'm more than happy to leave it at that.

If the ECF's reiterated what Jesus said, thousand times of repetition don't change the interpretation.

If ECF's stated more than what Jesus said, it means that they were wrong with the human words.

I don't think they meant their interpretations by the Human Body Butcher house or they had overrode the commandments of the OT prohibiting the Eating of Blood in any manner.

If ECF's claimed that the physical substances are changed to new ones, i.e. flesh and blood, they must have mentioned any specific process where the materials are changed. For example, from the bakery or during the process of prayer, etc.

Also, we already notice that ECF started to deviate from the NT teachings when Clement mentioned about the clergy systems. So, many teachings went apostate already as Paul warned to Ephesian elders ( Acts 20:28-30) " Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them "

I don't think any ECF's clearly stated that they eat Blood despite the prohibition by OT.

The concept of Eating Blood emerged only after 12c and after the following Thomas Acquinas and Lateran Council, unknowingly the Great Principle of Sacrifice to God.

If one say that they ate the Blood as a symbol of accepting the sacrifice next day at the Cross, then there are two contradictions there.
One is that they accepted "Symbolism", and the other is that they drank the Blood while they still believed that the Blood was for God as a redemption. In such case, it is like that Israelites drank blood at the same time while they applied the blood of lambs on the door posts and on the lintels. We don't read such statements except that the BLood eating was prohibited.

On the Yom-Kipur, only the Blood was brought into the Holy of Holies, only by the High Priest, which indicates the Blood was more important than the body of the sacrifice, because the life of the animal was there. Actually Blood is the media of the life to the body. So, the Blood was offered as a confession that the sinner died before the presence of God, and thereby the forgiveness was given to the sinners.

If the sinners drank the blood, it doesn't mean that Blood was offered to God. Throughout OT we don't find any statements that the people drank blood.

Even in NT we are supposed to abstain from Blood ( Acts 15:20). God saw the Blood of Jesus at the Cross, and He accepted it as a Redemption for those who believe in the Blood, and for the whole world.
In remembrance of such Blood, we take the cup, but it doesn't mean that we drink the blood as we read the followings:

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.

Paul never said Flesh or Blood here.

Jesus is everywhere in the world, and the bread and wine are special to commemorate the Lord, but it doesn't mean that the Bread itself has ears and eyes, and the wine has the heart to beat out the blood.

The main point of the Supper is that we have such faith and belief, we believe what Jesus has done at the Cross, He died for us by shedding the Blood at the Cross.

We must notice the words in the following too:

1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?


The word for Communion here is the translation from Koinonia, which has the meanings of " fellowship, partnership, participation, contribution, aid, etc"

How come it is abused as " Eating Blood" ?
Doesn't it mean " Participation" by remembering and believing what Jesus has done at the Cross and the Blood shed at the Cross?

Can we imagine that Jewish believers at the time of Jesus ate the Blood despite the OT commandments?

If they had so, they would have been extremely condemned for it by the other Jews.

If they did't drink Blood, then it means that they just commemorated His Blood with the wine, which is either Symbolism or Memorialism or Remembrance-ism.

 

[Eric B]

Well, that's your interpretation; as you can see, Eliyahu interprets the ECFs differently and more ambiguously and, for once, I'm inclined to agree with him . That's why I said earlier that I'm happy to be agnostic on the subject of exactly how Christ is Really Present in communion (physically? spiritually? both?) - that's a matter for God; all I know is that in receiving the bread and wine, I receive Jesus - and He receives me. I'm more than happy to leave it at that.

Yeah, but people are coming here dogmatically telling us we're wrong. I had never gotten involved in the real presence issue before this, but I have to be able to defend the less our stance. Now if it's a matter of my interpretation, vs. Eliyahu's interpretation vs. your interpretation, nand you're just willing to leave it a mystery, then there should not be much debate. Most of us here just say that "receiving Jesus" is a one time event, and a symbolic "washing" and "receiving His flesh", and the one time baptism, and periodic Communion represent it, without turning either event into "receiving" Christ over and over, and putting some sort of spiritual presence in the inanimate matter itself.

...which is exactly what is happening with the RP in communion - a Person, Jesus Christ, is present in objects, in this case bread and wine. Why is that so different from the Incarnation and so difficult for you?

Oh, and DT, :applause: :thumbs:

But you all have not been saying that the Person of Christ is present, but rather the flesh and blood only. That is a big difference. (Though one person here did say something about the bread and wine "containing His whole deity" or something like that). You all likened it to the burning bush, but God did not say His "flesh" was present in that. But His Person was, which could communicate with (literally talk to) people. Likewise was the Son present "in the Flesh". It wasn't just "flesh" that was present, but rather a Person present in the Flesh.

Also; I forgot last night to reprint two good answers from last week or so, from this thread and another, which were basically ignored.

[Helen]

In the meantime, if anyone should look at little earlier in John 6, Jesus has already explained what He means by the 'flesh and blood' -- and the comment about the flesh profiting nothing simply wraps it up.
"Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."
(John 6:35)
Bible explains Bible. Jesus explains exactly what He is about to talk about. You will also notice that when Jesus is talking to Nicodemus in John 3, Jesus is very calm. That's because Nicodemus honestly wants to know. However in John 6, the attitude of the crowd is different. They are grumbling and challenging -- they liked the food they were fed earlier in the chapter, but this business about believing in Jesus "whose father and mother we know" -- that's pushing it just a bit too far!
And so rather than honestly questioning Him, they simply argue among themselves (v.52).
So Jesus responds to them in a very Jewish way, turning their arguments on their ears. It has nothing to do with eating His actual flesh or drinking His actual blood!

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]:

As for Lk22:19. A perfectly legitimate translation (and literal at that), would be:
"Then taking a loaf having given thanks, He broke (it) then gave to them saying: This the body of mine is for you being given; unto my memory do (eat) ye!"
The reference clearly is not to the bread as the body of Christ; but to the body of Christ Himself being broken for the disciples; eating the bread, they should remeber that!

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus said "Where two or three are gathered in my Name THERE I AM in their midst".

In Col 1 we are told about "Christ IN YOU the hope of Glory".

these are the REAL PRESENCE texts of scripture.

Of the literal flesh Christ said in John 6 "(eating) Literal flesh profits nothing it is my WORDS that have spirit and life"

 

[Eliyahu]

What is this in the sentence of
" This do in remembrance of me ( Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24, 11:25) " ?

A certain magic transformation of the substance? or just eating the Bread and drinking the Wine of the cup?

 

[Eliyahu]

Did Jesus expect us to perform the miracle of turning the Bread into flesh and Wine into Blood?

What is " THIS" in the sentence of "This do in remembrance of me" ?

All believers are the Priests ( 1 Pet 2:5-9, Revel 1:6, 5:10). Are all believers supposed to perform the miracles of turning Bread into Flesh, Wine into Blood every week ?

Did Jesus expect us to disobey the Commandment of God by drinking Blood every week?

What were the famous ECF's saying on this issue? Were they not able to explain about this? Then why do the people try to follow ECF's over the Bible?

 

[BobRyan]

Christ was celebrating the Passover at the time -- the "this" is the Passover meal and Christ said that from that point on it was to be celebrated in remembrance of His sacrifice on the cross for us - the Lamb of God slain for the sins of the World.

In 1Cor 5 Paul says "Christ our PASSOVER has been slain".

There is NO command for "man to turn bread into God" in that Passover!!

But The RCC position is that the NEW Covenant is CONFINED to the RC mass since that is the only place they magically turn things into God --

The RC doctrine is that priests that are excommunicated after getting THE POWER to turn bread into God "do not LOSE that POWER".

They do that for the sake of expediency - since as a "communicant" you may not be privy to a notice sent to the priest that he is excommunicated and so in good faith you have let HIM turn stuff into God for you and then later you died without having an "in favor" priest do that -- does that mean you are lost - and have no absolution, a MORTAL SIN of not participating in mass?? no- the Priest needs to RETAIN HIS POWER so that you have no such problem to deal with.

Fortunately for our Catholic brethren the RCC was kind enough to make that concession for them in the dark ages - thus removing that one source of fear in mankind's darkest point of superstition and myth. (i.e. "the golden age for the RCC")

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Zenas]

BobRyan says: Christ was celebrating the Passover at the time -- the "this" is the Passover meal and Christ said that from that point on it was to be celebrated in remembrance of His sacrifice on the cross for us - the Lamb of God slain for the sins of the World.

Bob, you are right that Christ was celebrating the Passover. This feast began before the flight out of Egypt, and God's instructions for the original Passover are found in Exodus 12. The centerpiece of the Passover is selecting and killing an unblemished male lamb as a sacrifice. Hence the reference to Jesus as "Lamb of God." But after killing the lamb and sprinkling its blood on the lintel of the house, what did they do with the carcas of the animal? In Exodus 12: 8-9, the people were told to eat all of the lamb. Since Jesus is the Lamb of God who has been slain as a sacrifice for our sins, would it not follow that we would be commanded to eat his flesh?

In view of the history of the Passover, and the Last Supper being a celebration of the Passover, it seems very plausible that the bread becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus. Add to this that none of the Gospels quote Jesus as saying, "This [represents] my body," and that Paul said, [W]hoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord," you have a pretty good case for the real presence of Christ. On a personal level, I have difficulty with this but as a believer in the inerrant truth of the Bible, I must conclude that it is more likely than not.

 

[Eliyahu]

Bob, you are right that Christ was celebrating the Passover. This feast began before the flight out of Egypt, and God's instructions for the original Passover are found in Exodus 12. The centerpiece of the Passover is selecting and killing an unblemished male lamb as a sacrifice. Hence the reference to Jesus as "Lamb of God." But after killing the lamb and sprinkling its blood on the lintel of the house, what did they do with the carcas of the animal? In Exodus 12: 8-9, the people were told to eat all of the lamb. Since Jesus is the Lamb of God who has been slain as a sacrifice for our sins, would it not follow that we would be commanded to eat his flesh?

Hope Bob answers this issue in person.
Did Israelites drink the blood of lambs as well?

In view of the history of the Passover, and the Last Supper being a celebration of the Passover, it seems very plausible that the bread becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus. Add to this that none of the Gospels quote Jesus as saying, "This [represents] my body," and that Paul said, [W]hoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord," you have a pretty good case for the real presence of Christ. On a personal level, I have difficulty with this but as a believer in the inerrant truth of the Bible, I must conclude that it is more likely than not.

Does Paul say "Whosoever eat the Flesh"? When does the Bread become Flesh?

It sounds like a voice from the death agony of Transubstantiation, though I am amazed to hear the " Catholic" Baptists.

 

[tragic_pizza]

What is this in the sentence of
" This do in remembrance of me ( Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24, 11:25) " ?

A certain magic transformation of the substance? or just eating the Bread and drinking the Wine of the cup?

I vote "niether."

 

[Eliyahu]

I vote "niether."

Then what?

 

[tragic_pizza]

Then what?

Well, I don't know.

Reformed theology understands the Lord's Supper to be a sacrament, where the particular congregation joins with the church universal in remembering Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. Our language is unequivocal in calling the elements the body and blood, yet we will not say that the elements become anything, or are infused with anything. We don't know, and we aren't going to hazard a guess.

The elements are holy, but more holy is the act of communing with one another and with Christ. The sacrament is not in the elements, but the action.

 

[Eliyahu]

Well, I don't know.

The elements are holy, but more holy is the act of communing with one another and with Christ. The sacrament is not in the elements, but the action.

In this case the Action means Remembrance or Remembering.

Paul said "Eat this Bread and drink this Cup" ( 1 Cor 11:26)

At that moment when the Bread and Wine are swallowed, they don't seem to be Flesh and Blood yet. Maybe they become flesh and blood after the complete digestion and absorption into the blood line. Don't you think so?

 

[tragic_pizza]

In this case the Action means Remembrance or Remembering.

Paul said "Eat this Bread and drink this Cup" ( 1 Cor 11:26)

At that moment when the Bread and Wine are swallowed, they don't seem to be Flesh and Blood yet. Maybe they become flesh and blood after the complete digestion and absorption into the blood line. Don't you think so?

I know this sounds disrespectful, but I can't think of another way top phrase it: I think the whole discussion of "if" and "when" and "how" is nonsensical.

It is what it is.

 

[Eliyahu]

I would rather think and discuss about Consubstantiation or any other belief than Transubstantiation on this occasion.

If anyone is in a position to explain and advocate those other belief than Transubstantiation and/or Memorialism, she or he may present it here.

Since Luther presented such Consubstantiation, has it changed a little or how is the argument from it now since the science can tell what is transformed and what is not transformed, and furthermore the meaning of Real Presence if we believe that Jesus is among them who gather together in the name of Jesus.

Is there any other group of people who believe in the Consubstantiation than Lutheran?

 

[Chemnitz]

I would rather think and discuss about Consubstantiation or any other belief than Transubstantiation on this occasion.

If anyone is in a position to explain and advocate those other belief than Transubstantiation and/or Memorialism, she or he may present it here.

Since Luther presented such Consubstantiation, has it changed a little or how is the argument from it now since the science can tell what is transformed and what is not transformed, and furthermore the meaning of Real Presence if we believe that Jesus is among them who gather together in the name of Jesus.

Is there any other group of people who believe in the Consubstantiation than Lutheran?

Nobody believes in consubstantiation. It is a rather unfortunate term others have used to describe Lutheran beliefs but is not an accurate term. Consubstantiation means that the body and blood are along with the bread and wine. Lutherans have never definitively stated how the body and blood are present only that it is. I would say one could call it a mysterious presence but then people would confuse it with the reformed spiritual presence beliefs.

However, the technical theological term that is used within Lutheran circles to describe our beliefs is the sacramental presence, which spelled out means that Christ has made his body and blood present within the sacrament by mysterious or unknown means.

 

[Davyboy]

This is totally off topic but usually threads like this one has stan the man in it but I noticed he was banned from the board, I wonder why he got kicked off?

 

[Zenas]

In John 6:53-57, Jesus equates drinking his blood and eating his flesh with having eternal life. He was obviously making an important point so it would seem counterintuitive for him to use such repulsive subjects if he were speaking in metaphors. In fact, a number of His disciples left him after this discourse and He did nothing to disabuse them of their perception. Moreover, John made no effort to insert a parenthetical in his writing that Jesus wasn't saying exactly what He meant.

I have less difficulty with the HOW than with the WHY. If Jesus can turn water into wine and stones into bread, He should have no problem turning his body into bread and His blood into wine. It certainly seems that Jesus meant this as the perfecton of an Old Testament commandment. But why was it necessary to eat His flesh and drink His blood? Perhaps someone else can provide some insight.

 

[Eliyahu]

In John 6:53-57, Jesus equates drinking his blood and eating his flesh with having eternal life. He was obviously making an important point so it would seem counterintuitive for him to use such repulsive subjects if he were speaking in metaphors. In fact, a number of His disciples left him after this discourse and He did nothing to disabuse them of their perception. Moreover, John made no effort to insert a parenthetical in his writing that Jesus wasn't saying exactly what He meant.

I have less difficulty with the HOW than with the WHY. If Jesus can turn water into wine and stones into bread, He should have no problem turning his body into bread and His blood into wine. It certainly seems that Jesus meant this as the perfecton of an Old Testament commandment. But why was it necessary to eat His flesh and drink His blood? Perhaps someone else can provide some insight.

Zenas,

If you participate in the discussion newly, then I hope you read thru the whole posts so that we may avoid the repeated discussion, which may annoy the other posters. Your arguments were already raised and answered. If you still believe that you are eating Human Flesh and drinking Human Blood at the Lord's Supper, please answer these questions and issues.

I would shortly comment that you misunderstand the Bible quite a lot, especially on John 6:63. People have the Eternal Life by accepting the Words of Jesus Christ which is the Life, not the flesh and blood. Read the sentence again and again until you can understand it clearly, please.


#47

05-05-2007, 06:35 AM

RE: This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19

I would rather return to the original theme, though someone's catchphrase is just provocative against Biblical Truth.

I was and am quite sure that Nooobody who holds Transubstatiation could answer the basic questions about the Lord's Supper:

1) Medical Lab Test
What is left unchanged and what is changed substantially should be answered. If they say that the Substance is not changed, then they are admitting that they don't follow the Transubstantiation, but they also accept them by Faith, which is the fundamental point of Memorialism.
If they still insist that the Substances of the Bread and Wine are changed to the Human Flesh and Human Blood, then they must prove it, which could never be done so far.
If they claim none of the above, they may be claiming either Illusion, or Delusion, or Deception. Please prove it!

2) Biblical Trespassing.
If they drink Blood, it is a violation of the Law given by God in Genesis 9:4, Lev 17:10-14, Deut 12:16, 15:23
They are confessing that they are ignorant about the Law of God and they are cut off from the people of God.
None of the ECF's exegeses could be presented on this question. None of the Catholic sites provides the explanation on this issue, as far as I know. Therefore, RCC who are usually bringing the ready-made Catholic interpretation like parrots, rather than their own thinking and interpretation, cannot find the answer to this question again.
If they are honest, they must try to answer to this.
Was Jesus violating the Law when He gave the cup? Did He indeed distribute the human Blood to the disciples to drink?

3) Ignorance of the Bible
The Blood was to be offered to God, not to the human beings to eat. This is the fundamental Tru!th, for which Jesus came to this world. But RCC doesn't know this truth! How miserably foolish they are!
The whole Redemption Truth is based on this Truth and Jesus offered Himself at the Cross by shedding the precious Blood there, based on this Truth!
Did disciples suck the Blood shed at the Cross?


As for John 6:63, RCC made some childish interpretation on it., but don't understand why the Jews left Jesus.
The Jews came to Jesus to get some physical food like Manna after eating miraculous food from 5 barley loaves and 2 fishes.
They still pursued the physical food to eat.
So they said this:
John 6:
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Then Jesus said
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life

Then the Jews were disappointed and departed from Jesus

John 6:
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

RC people are confessing that they are the descendants of those Jews who pursued the physical food instead of Words of God, then were disappointed with Jesus and departed from Him.

The Words of God are the real food for the life of the believers, which is not understood by many natural or carnal churchmen ( 1 Cor 2:14, 3:1, 3:3)