Is communion symbolic or literal?

[for_his_glory]

Ok here we go.
I Corinthians 11:25 kjv
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.

So the cup is in his blood. To get him inside you is:
Revelation 3:20 kjv
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

So communion occurs inside the (individual) believer who has opened the door.

Got to love metaphysics, and meta is a Greek Word.

Mississippi redneks just can think strange.
eddif

1 Corinthians 11:this do in remembrance of me.............Communion is done in remembrance as we acknowledge Christ and His finished works on the cross for the remission of sin

 

[Jim Parker]

Well, if you think you are actually drinking warm, thick, gooey blood and cutting up a man's flesh & skin and chewing on it.... more power to you.

Please. Nobody thinks that. Why would you make such a silly comment.

I know I am drinking juice that a company called Welch's made, and eating a thin doughy wafer manufactured in Tampa Florida and delivered by truck.

Then you are not receiving the Eucharist.
And, according to Jesus, you have no life in you and will not be raised from the dead or receive eternal life.
Jesus said that, not me.

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't care what the Catholics teach nor what Luther taught the bread and the wine I go to the store to buy and use in communion is only bread and wine that is literal of the bread Christ used to represent His body and the wine He used to represent His blood He shed. How does bread and wine miraculously turn into actual flesh and blood and who in their right mind would eat flesh and blood unless one is a cannibal.

You can "represent" all you want.
Jesus said the bread was His body and the wine was His blood.
You don't have to agree with Jesus.
And you can use the excuse that it's just what them dang KATHlicks teach.
But JESUS said it was His body and blood and unless you ate His flesh and drank His blood then you would have no eternal life.
Don't be so concerned about not looking too KATHlick that you forfeit eternal life.

 

[Jim Parker]

Eternal life and walking with Christ is real, the bread and wine I buy at the grocery store is real, but only representive of the body and the blood of Jesus, not literally being flesh and blood that we eat and drink. but representative.

Yeah. I read what you said.
It contradicts what Jesus said.

 

[eddif]

1 Corinthians 11:this do in remembrance of me.............Communion is done in remembrance as we acknowledge Christ and His finished works on the cross for the remission of sin

Past the cross, resurrection, and assention:
I Corinthians 25:45 kjv
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Christ in us works to will and do of his good pleasure. I Peter 2:24 as one scripture.

eddif

 

[eddif]

I Corinthians 10:32 kjv
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

 

[Willie T]

Were they asked, in the Sheep & Goats Parable, "Did you take Communion correctly?"
No, they were asked if they were concerned and caring for the needy and hungry.

THAT decided their fate, NOT their guilt in adequately beating their breasts at Communion time.

 

[Jim Parker]

Were they asked, in the Sheep & Goats Parable, "Did you take Communion correctly?"
No, they were asked if they were concerned and caring for the needy and hungry.

THAT decided their fate, NOT their guilt in adequately beating their breasts at Communion time.

Your mockery of fellow Christians aside, Jesus said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:53-58)
You don't have to believe that.
You can spin it and mock other Christians who believe Jesus' words if you like.
It's your choice. You can mock all you like. You may take your seat with the mockers.
You can ignore the fact that there nothing in that passage that hints of it being "symbolic".
Just like there is nothing in the last supper passages that hint at them being symbolic.
Jhn 12:47-48 “And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day."
Be careful what you decide not to believe because you think you're smarter than all the scholars of the first 1500 years of the Church until Zwingli decided he knew better.

Jesus also said, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do the things which I say?"
If you believe Jesus meant what He said then do as He said even if it seems too KATH-lick for your sensibilities.

 

[ezra]

What is "the body of Christ?" I think the Bible tells me it is the group of Christians I meet with. And it is them, I should be considering as I think of why Christ sacrificed for all of us. I "examine myself", not to see if I feel guilty enough to eat the wafer.... but to see if I am considering my brothers and sisters, and if they have everything they need.

it is a private thing between man and God and we should examine our self before partaking DId folks drop for taking it in the wrong manner... i haven seen any i am still alive as a sinner in the umc i took communion . it should be took in the right manner we should have our house in order /but then again also we should try to have our house in order before entering to worship in God House..both are just as important

 

[Papa Zoom]

I've always understood it to be symbolic although we say this is the body and this is the blood and that's how I think of it and approach it. I don't understand the "actual flesh and blood" part. Like how is that supposed to work. When does it actually become that?

It seems that "do this in remembrance of me" suggests that we partake in communion to remember Jesus, what He accomplished on the Cross on our behalf and to do so reverently and thankfully. It is not to be taken lightly.

 

[for_his_glory]

You can "represent" all you want.
Jesus said the bread was His body and the wine was His blood.
You don't have to agree with Jesus.
And you can use the excuse that it's just what them dang KATHlicks teach.
But JESUS said it was His body and blood and unless you ate His flesh and drank His blood then you would have no eternal life.
Don't be so concerned about not looking too KATHlick that you forfeit eternal life.

It is the Catholic Church that teaches that the bread and wine is actually real flesh and blood that you are putting in your mouth so if it is flesh and blood you are eating and drinking then that is cannibalism and truly not of God. It's no excuse as that is what they teach and what you are also saying here.

Catholic Church nor any Church and what they teach has nothing to do with my salvation and being Spiritually born again, indwelled with the Holy Spirit as it is only by Gods grace that I have eternal life with Him through faith in Christ alone as it's a free gift from God. It has nothing to so with the cross, but that of the finished works done on it as I do not worship the cross, but only God do I worship.

and Faith in Christ as it comes by God's grace to all who will believe in Christ and not the cross, but the finished works that were done on the cross.

 

[for_his_glory]

Yeah. I read what you said.
It contradicts what Jesus said.

So you are saying Christ contradicts Himself as all I have given is in the scriptures I posted which are the words of Christ and not mine ,but you go right ahead and believe everything that comes from the pulpit of your church as you believe everything they teach as that is your choice by all means. Odd, I went to a Catholic church a few times with a friend and watched them take communion as I wasn't allowed as I was not Catholic, but all I saw was them putting a little white wafer in their mouth and drank wine from a cup. I would only assume they bought the wafers and the wine from a store or did God literally hand down each one a piece of Jesus flesh and His blood...................hmmmmmm!!!

 

[Jim Parker]

It is the Catholic Church that teaches that the bread and wine is actually real flesh and blood

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
1000 years before there even was a Roman Catholic Church, the ENTIRE church taught that the bread was the body of Christ and the wine was the blood of Christ.
It was not "Catholic" teaching it was the universal Christian teaching.

if it is flesh and blood you are eating and drinking then that is cannibalism

You agree the ancient pagan Romans who, in their ignorance, brought that same charge against the Church.

Ignatius of Antioch (30-107 A. D. A disciple of the apostle John and Bishop of Antioch) in his Epistle to the Smyrnaens, Ch. VII: “Let Us Stand Aloof from Such Heretics” states;
“They (the heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,..”

So you agree with the ancient pagan Romans and the 1st century heretics.
:neutral ain't that swell


Further evidence of the doctrine being part of the teaching of the apostles:

Justin Martyr, the church’s first apologist, wrote in the first half of the 2nd century in his “The First Apology of Justin”, in Chapter LXVI.—Of the Eucharist. In it he reports what he was taught as a new Christian by the church. That would mean that the teaching he received was already established in the church. It is part of the teaching of the apostles who taught what they learned from Jesus. It is God’s inspired teaching to the church by His Son, through the apostles to the church.

“And this food is called among us Eucaristiva [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; ”and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood; ”and gave it to them alone.”

Thus the earliest documents of the Christian Church teach what they were taught by the apostles who had been taught by Jesus that the bread and wine become the body and blood of the LORD. It is the original teaching of the entire Church and not the invention of the Roman church 1000 years later.

 

[Jim Parker]

So you are saying Christ contradicts Himself

I am saying nothing of the kind.

 

[Razeontherock]

I don't care what the Catholics teach nor what Luther taught the bread and the wine I go to the store to buy and use in communion is only bread and wine that is literal of the bread Christ used to represent His body and the wine He used to represent His blood He shed. How does bread and wine miraculously turn into actual flesh and blood and who in their right mind would eat flesh and blood unless one is a cannibal.

People went to their death over this very thing.

I am duly impressed by the fact that the only time Jesus ever expressed doubt, it was about if He would find Faith on Earth upon His return.

 

[Razeontherock]

2 questions, that I think will be productive to this thread. Post #22, Jim's first comment. Can that be expounded on? Because the question was asked in literal form. If the best response is "it's a mystery," I can accept that.

Next, the Roman Catholic Church never existed before 1054? I think Paul was at the Church in Rome; why wouldn't that be considered the RCC?

 

[Jim Parker]

People went to their death over this very thing.
I am duly impressed by the fact that the only time Jesus ever expressed doubt, it was about if He would find Faith on Earth upon His return.

Nothing really ever changes.
People who don't like the teachings of the apostles have been "reforming" Christian doctrine according to their own imaginings and personal preferences for almost 2000 years.

And the creators of every new and improved really true truth and hot off the press revelation all ask the same question question when confronted with the original teaching: "Did God really say that?"

 

[Razeontherock]

You're preaching it good: "if you can't say amen, at least say ouch"

 

[Jim Parker]

Next, the Roman Catholic Church never existed before 1054? I think Paul was at the Church in Rome; why wouldn't that be considered the RCC?

There was no "Roman Catholic Church" as an entity separate from the eastern Church until the western church split off from the eastern church over doctrinal differences in the 11th century.
When Paul was in Rome in the 1st century, there were no such differences. In fact, Paul was expounding the teaching of the Church for the entire Church before the first Gospel was written.
It was the western church (Roman) that introduced new doctrines such as the filioque (That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.), the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (Pope), the legal/juridical understanding of justification, the satisfaction of justice view of the atonement, and later, the Immaculate conception and the infallibility of the Pope.
But during the first 900 years, there were no major differences in doctrine between the eastern and western parts of the Church. (Just the Pope trying to the supreme bishop <<<"here's to cardinal puff..."?>>>)

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't understand the "actual flesh and blood" part. Like how is that supposed to work.

Jesus didn't explain it. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Coptic Churches simply say it is a mystery.
If Jesus thought it was necessary for us to know then He would have explained it. (or so it seems to me)

When does it actually become that?

Apparently, when the priest (presiding elder) prays over it.
The eastern churches did not go into a lot of detail as to how and why. The western (Roman) church, having been more greatly influenced by Aristotle and Plato went into great detail in trying to explain the process and came up with "transubstantiation" which, as far as I can see, in the final analysis, doesn't explain anything either.

If we knew how God does what He does then we'd be God too!