Lord's Supper - Metaphore only?

[thessalonian]

A common arguement against the Eucharist is that Jesus was simply speaking metaphorically. He says I am the vine and yet we know he is not a vine. He said "I am the door" but yet he is not made of wood. He even says "I am the bread of life". No he is not bread either. I most definitely agree with that. When he says this he is in fact speaking metaphorically. Bread is a symbol of Christ for bread has been the primary food historically throughout history for mankind. The langauge of "I am the...." is metaphore. Up to this point I think we can agree.
But are we limited to one view of God. By this I mean that can the meaphore be the reality. In John's Gospel we see the baptism of Jesus and the Holy Spirit appears.

John.1
[32] And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him.
Luke.3
[22] and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
Now doves have been developed in the metaphorical sense as symbols of peace and so that is the symbol that the Holy Spirit appears as. Was their a dove there? No, it was the Holy Spirit appearing as a dove. Yet I think there was physically (i.e.) bodily the Holy Spirit there, just as the man Jesus embodied the Son of God, Jesus. God can be in the physical.

Now the significance of this is that there are some passages that simply do not fit the metaphore with regard to the Lord's Supper. We are told that "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you". "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink". Quite clearly this is not the language of metaphore for never anywhere else does Jesus say "this door is truly me" or this "vine is truly me". This is not the language of metaphore but reality. That he used metaphoric language above it does not mean that he is speaking metaphorically here. Neither is there a contradiction in using the metaphore of bread and then speaking the reality of what looks like bread (the metaphore) really being him. "This is my body...this is my blood". Rememberence is not symolic either. Though the symbol of bread helps us to remember that he is in fact feeding us. Feeding our souls with his flesh that he says was to be given for the LIFE OF THE WORLD. In the Old Testament the blood of the animal was considered to contain the life of the animal. With regard to Christ when we recieve his flesh and his blood his life becomes a part of our lives. We become what we eat and are restored to his image and likeness.

Blessings

 

[ttg]

Looks like Thess was paying attention to the Gospel reading at Mass this Sunday. (John 6:51-58)

We had a visiting Priest who did a wonderful job covering this subject. It was the only time I've ever wanted to clap after a sermon. Maybe even pump my fist into the air and shout "Yeah, baby!" in my best Austin Powers voice.

 

[thessalonian]

Yep. I don't know how many times it has happened that I am defending some Catholic teaching on here (last week is when this stuff came up) and next thing I know, it's in the Sunday readings. Happens all the time. 8-)

 

[LittleNipper]

Looks like Thess was paying attention to the Gospel reading at Mass this Sunday. (John 6:51-58)

We had a visiting Priest who did a wonderful job covering this subject. It was the only time I've ever wanted to clap after a sermon. Maybe even pump my fist into the air and shout "Yeah, baby!" in my best Austin Powers voice.

The character Austin Powers is not one I imagine as very symbolic of a righteous man--but who's to judge. One must be willing to at least see the CHRIST that the disciples saw. The reality is that JESUS was flayed alive. JESUS had his beard pulled out. When the disciples saw JESUS sitting at the table, they had no clue what HE was talking about. The scriptures seem to indicate that they were surprised and dismayed. Jesus was stating a fact in that HIS life would be forfeited and that HE would be battered, beaten, torn to shreds, and nailed to a cross. In fact HE was consumed but only once and for all time. We are not trapped into repeating a procedure or rite. We do what we do to celebrate what JESUS CHRIST accomplished, is accomplishing and will accomplish, but not by way of ritualism.

 

[thessalonian]

This anti-ritualism idea of yours is puzzling. Perhaps you never read the book of revelations. At any rate if you think I am sitting in mass like a zombie and the meaning behind the words and the symbols in Mass is not effecting my thinking, you don't know at all what is going on. It is interesting if you read Scott Hahn's book, the Lamb's Supper, how the book of revlations parrellels the Mass. But you will not grasp it as long as you have these prejudices in your mind.

Apparently you miss the point of John 6 starting out with the feeding of 5,000. Not counting women and children of course. Do you think those five loaves and 2 fish fish were consumed? Is God limited by the confines of the flesh as to how far that food can go? Food for the soul? Is he limited in time either? Perhaps you do not grasp the significance of these questions. Let me know.

 

[thessalonian]

The character Austin Powers is not one I imagine as very symbolic of a righteous man

Perhaps you missed that he wasn't just sitting in the pew as a ritualistic zombie, but the Mass was bringing Christ alive to his heart! It was not the man Austin Powers but a moment in a movie of a role played by Austin Powers. Not sure why his comment should be changed to Austin Powers being a total symbol of righteousness. :-?

 

[LittleNipper]

The character Austin Powers is not one I imagine as very symbolic of a righteous man

Perhaps you missed that he wasn't just sitting in the pew as a ritualistic zombie, but the Mass was bringing Christ alive to his heart! It was not the man Austin Powers but a moment in a movie of a role played by Austin Powers. Not sure why his comment should be changed to Austin Powers being a total symbol of righteousness. :-?

Well, in any case with it's rating, it was a movie I would not pay to see and so I would not be able to relate the character. Not that that makes me a better man then the actor who played Austin Powers nor the person watching the movie. It simply means that for me, such movies are not a source of emulation. The comment was put to me as a child, if I wasn't sure of something, then I should imagine taking Jesus Christ along. Would I feel comfortable taking Jesus to such a movie? If the answer is no, the reality is that for the saved individual, who being indwelled by the HOLY SPIRIT, that is in fact exactly what is happening. So if you have no issue with Austin Powers then clearly such behavior is not an issue for you.

 

[LittleNipper]

This anti-ritualism idea of yours is puzzling. Perhaps you never read the book of revelations. At any rate if you think I am sitting in mass like a zombie and the meaning behind the words and the symbols in Mass is not effecting my thinking, you don't know at all what is going on. It is interesting if you read Scott Hahn's book, the Lamb's Supper, how the book of revlations parrellels the Mass. But you will not grasp it as long as you have these prejudices in your mind.

Apparently you miss the point of John 6 starting out with the feeding of 5,000. Not counting women and children of course. Do you think those five loaves and 2 fish fish were consumed? Is God limited by the confines of the flesh as to how far that food can go? Food for the soul? Is he limited in time either? Perhaps you do not grasp the significance of these questions. Let me know.

In the case of the loaves and fishes, was JESUS feeding the hungry with this miracle or was HE saving all those souls from damnation? Clearly everyone there experienced the miracle but not everyone accepted JESUS as the SON of GOD. In fact, most again, had no clue of Jesus being anymore than either a prophet or to the religious dignitaries of the day a nuisance.... Did the apostles reason that JEUS would rise from the dead or were they confused and frightened? I so sit through the Last Supper once a month at the first Sunday of the month as is the tradition of the church I attend. I go through self-examination, and I thank GOD for HIS sacrifice to become as a man and dwell among sinners and then die a terrible death, so that my sins might be forgiven, if I accept through faith GOD's gift so freely given.

 

[ZeroTX]

The character Austin Powers is not one I imagine as very symbolic of a righteous man

Perhaps you missed that he wasn't just sitting in the pew as a ritualistic zombie, but the Mass was bringing Christ alive to his heart! It was not the man Austin Powers but a moment in a movie of a role played by Austin Powers. Not sure why his comment should be changed to Austin Powers being a total symbol of righteousness. :-?

Well, in any case with it's rating, it was a movie I would not pay to see and so I would not be able to relate the character. Not that that makes me a better man then the actor who played Austin Powers nor the person watching the movie. It simply means that for me, such movies are not a source of emulation. The comment was put to me as a child, if I wasn't sure of something, then I should imagine taking Jesus Christ along. Would I feel comfortable taking Jesus to such a movie? If the answer is no, the reality is that for the saved individual, who being indwelled by the HOLY SPIRIT, that is in fact exactly what is happening. So if you have no issue with Austin Powers then clearly such behavior is not an issue for you.

Great job of missing the point!

-Michael

 

[LittleNipper]

The character Austin Powers is not one I imagine as very symbolic of a righteous man

Perhaps you missed that he wasn't just sitting in the pew as a ritualistic zombie, but the Mass was bringing Christ alive to his heart! It was not the man Austin Powers but a moment in a movie of a role played by Austin Powers. Not sure why his comment should be changed to Austin Powers being a total symbol of righteousness. :-?

Well, in any case with it's rating, it was a movie I would not pay to see and so I would not be able to relate the character. Not that that makes me a better man then the actor who played Austin Powers nor the person watching the movie. It simply means that for me, such movies are not a source of emulation. The comment was put to me as a child, if I wasn't sure of something, then I should imagine taking Jesus Christ along. Would I feel comfortable taking Jesus to such a movie? If the answer is no, the reality is that for the saved individual, who being indwelled by the HOLY SPIRIT, that is in fact exactly what is happening. So if you have no issue with Austin Powers then clearly such behavior is not an issue for you.

Great job of missing the point!

-Michael

Perhaps, my point was just as sharp....

 

[ttg]

Little Nipper, maybe you could comment or post a question on the subject at hand (the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist) rather posting a red herring.

I promise to make no more movie references if it bothers you that much.

 

[thessalonian]

So if you have no issue with Austin Powers then clearly such behavior is not an issue for you.

I haven't seen the movie either and haven't checked in to it. As I recall ttg has recently come to a stronger faith in Christ. Does this mean that he forgets about movies that he has gone to in the past that were perhaps inappropriate. I don't know about this one.

 

[thessalonian]

This anti-ritualism idea of yours is puzzling. Perhaps you never read the book of revelations. At any rate if you think I am sitting in mass like a zombie and the meaning behind the words and the symbols in Mass is not effecting my thinking, you don't know at all what is going on. It is interesting if you read Scott Hahn's book, the Lamb's Supper, how the book of revlations parrellels the Mass. But you will not grasp it as long as you have these prejudices in your mind.

Apparently you miss the point of John 6 starting out with the feeding of 5,000. Not counting women and children of course. Do you think those five loaves and 2 fish fish were consumed? Is God limited by the confines of the flesh as to how far that food can go? Food for the soul? Is he limited in time either? Perhaps you do not grasp the significance of these questions. Let me know.

In the case of the loaves and fishes, was JESUS feeding the hungry with this miracle or was HE saving all those souls from damnation? Clearly everyone there experienced the miracle but not everyone accepted JESUS as the SON of GOD. In fact, most again, had no clue of Jesus being anymore than either a prophet or to the religious dignitaries of the day a nuisance.... Did the apostles reason that JEUS would rise from the dead or were they confused and frightened? I so sit through the Last Supper once a month at the first Sunday of the month as is the tradition of the church I attend. I go through self-examination, and I thank GOD for HIS sacrifice to become as a man and dwell among sinners and then die a terrible death, so that my sins might be forgiven, if I accept through faith GOD's gift so freely given.

Little Nipper is a good name for you. You nibble at the edges but miss the meat. The feeding with the loaves and fishes was a sign, a forshadowing. it was not the Eucharist and I never claimed it was the Eucharist. He was feeding their bodies but they failed to see his ability to feed their souls and thus the missed the point of what followed in John 6 and failed to believe that his flesh could be true food and his blood true drink, just as you are doing. Because they could not see him as the Son of God they could not accept the deeper teachings. Try to deal with the OP just once. So far you have not faced it head on.

Sounds like you have a little monthly ritual going on by the way. :-D

 

[LittleNipper]

This anti-ritualism idea of yours is puzzling. Perhaps you never read the book of revelations. At any rate if you think I am sitting in mass like a zombie and the meaning behind the words and the symbols in Mass is not effecting my thinking, you don't know at all what is going on. It is interesting if you read Scott Hahn's book, the Lamb's Supper, how the book of revlations parrellels the Mass. But you will not grasp it as long as you have these prejudices in your mind.

Apparently you miss the point of John 6 starting out with the feeding of 5,000. Not counting women and children of course. Do you think those five loaves and 2 fish fish were consumed? Is God limited by the confines of the flesh as to how far that food can go? Food for the soul? Is he limited in time either? Perhaps you do not grasp the significance of these questions. Let me know.

In the case of the loaves and fishes, was JESUS feeding the hungry with this miracle or was HE saving all those souls from damnation? Clearly everyone there experienced the miracle but not everyone accepted JESUS as the SON of GOD. In fact, most again, had no clue of Jesus being anymore than either a prophet or to the religious dignitaries of the day a nuisance.... Did the apostles reason that JEUS would rise from the dead or were they confused and frightened? I so sit through the Last Supper once a month at the first Sunday of the month as is the tradition of the church I attend. I go through self-examination, and I thank GOD for HIS sacrifice to become as a man and dwell among sinners and then die a terrible death, so that my sins might be forgiven, if I accept through faith GOD's gift so freely given.

Little Nipper is a good name for you. You nibble at the edges but miss the meat. The feeding with the loaves and fishes was a sign, a forshadowing. it was not the Eucharist and I never claimed it was the Eucharist. He was feeding their bodies but they failed to see his ability to feed their souls and thus the missed the point of what followed in John 6 and failed to believe that his flesh could be true food and his blood true drink, just as you are doing. Because they could not see him as the Son of God they could not accept the deeper teachings. Try to deal with the OP just once. So far you have not faced it head on.

Sounds like you have a little monthly ritual going on by the way. :-D

We present the LORD's Supper as a memorial and a time to reflect and examine. The saved (born again) Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian does not feed on the blood of CHRIST but GOD's Standard, HIS HOLY WORD the Bible. He is already washed in the Blood of the LAMB and is being filled with the HOLY SPIRIT or Comforter. I'm Little Nipper because as the Victor Dog of the same name, I listen for MY MASTER's VOICE and endeavor to obey... My master speaks to me through HIS HOLY WORD rather then a new improved Berliner Gram-o-phone..... To face the OP head on might come across to you as being confrontational. I'm not out to win a debate or blacken your eye. I'm here to light a candle.and set it high on a candle stand were it maybe seen by all.

 

[LittleNipper]

Little Nipper, maybe you could comment or post a question on the subject at hand (the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist) rather posting a red herring.

I promise to make no more movie references if it bothers you that much.

I really do apologize if I hurt your feelings. I'm not trying to be fault finding. I do believe that as a Christian, I'm being watched as an example and I endeavor to not be a stumbling block to those around me. As one matures in CHRIST, I believe this becomes less of an obstacle..

 

[thessalonian]

We present the LORD's Supper as a memorial and a time to reflect and examine. The saved (born again) Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian does not feed on the blood of CHRIST but GOD's Standard, HIS HOLY WORD the Bible.

So the flesh of Christ is in opposition to the Bible? Once again LN, you raise objections that show ignorance of Catholicism. We agree that metaphorically the word of God is something we can feed upon. That is why the first part of our Mass is called "The liturgy of the Word". This is not contradictory to the Litugy of the Eucharist. If you do not feed on the blood of Christ, Christ tells you you have no life within you.

He is already washed in the Blood of the LAMB and is being filled with the HOLY SPIRIT or Comforter. I'm Little Nipper because as the Victor Dog of the same name, I listen for MY MASTER's VOICE and endeavor to obey... My master speaks to me through HIS HOLY WORD rather then a new improved Berliner Gram-o-phone..... To face the OP head on might come across to you as being confrontational. I'm not out to win a debate or blacken your eye. I'm here to light a candle.and set it high on a candle stand were it maybe seen by all.

So I guess I am going to continue to get these milk like responses that come nowhere near convincing me of anything or being any kind of a light. You seem to think I lack faith in Christ. He is exactly where my COMPLETE faith is.

God bless

 

[Vic C.]

Thess, let's see if we can get a conversation going without debate being interjected into the thick of it. (not by us, but but others)

So the flesh of Christ is in opposition to the Bible? Once again LN, you raise objections that show ignorance of Catholicism. We agree that metaphorically the word of God is something we can feed upon. That is why the first part of our Mass is called "The liturgy of the Word". This is not contradictory to the Litugy of the Eucharist. If you do not feed on the blood of Christ, Christ tells you you have no life within you.

I am deeply concerned about this; not the "body is bread" but the "blood is wine" part. What is the significance of the blood; is it symbolic or is there some transformation from wine into blood?

You know I'm Christian, but this troubles me from a Jewish perspective, which is of great interest to me.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

A common argument against the Eucharist is that Jesus was simply speaking metaphorically. He says I am the vine and yet we know he is not a vine. He said "I am the door" but yet he is not made of wood.

My only response to this thread, and the zillion or so other discussions on this topic is this:

Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. We read about it in the gospels. When He did this, He was sitting at the table ~ in His physical body. He was holding a physical (symbolic) l loaf of bread in his physical hand.
Thessalonian, I appreciate your driving the point home with the vine and door. I am reminded of Carmen's song that speaks of God taking us under His wing...

It is also interesting to note that the Lamb of God...is also The Good Shepherd. Me? I am one of His sheep.

 

[francisdesales]

I am deeply concerned about this; not the "body is bread" but the "blood is wine" part. What is the significance of the blood; is it symbolic or is there some transformation from wine into blood?

The transformation is BOTH symbolic and real. It is not only a sacrament that hides a spiritual reality through symbols, the sacrament ITSELF is a reality.

The significance of blood has several different avenues.

First, blood is a reminder of the first Covenant, which was sealed with blood. It was done in a liturgical setting, a communion between God and His People. As such, the New Covenant is promulgated with this background (the shadow of the good things to come).

Secondly, the blood contains the life, according to Leviticus. That life belongs to God alone, which is why Jews refrained from drinking it. However, in the New Covenant, God is giving us His life through His abiding presence within us. THIS is how we have life. Thus, we receive Christ's life within us, both bodily and spiritually, through Holy Communion.

Regards

 

[thessalonian]

As Stfrancisdesales pointed out Lev 10 and 17 gives the reason why the blood was forbidden. It was because it contained the life of the animal. The blood was sprinkled upon the people but it could not be ingested. It was a part of the corrupt creation. The blood of Christ is without blemish, pure and holy.

Lev 17

[11] For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.
[12] Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.

The blood contains the life according to leviticus and it is the life of Christ that we want in us. "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you".

Now these words most definitely were hard for the Jews to hear, even symbolically by the very prohibition that you refer to. It was a law that they would not violate. Yet we know that Christ is the Lord of the law. The law against ingestion of blood was not the moral law but the sacrificial law. Christ modified the sacrificial laws through his death on the cross. We still don't commonly drink blood of course. But this prohibition was modified by Christ. He even modified the moral law in Matt 5 when he said things like "you have heard it said "thou shall not committ adultery" but I say "anyone who lusts after a woman committs adultery in his heart".

Also, do you eat fat by any chance. How about the rest of the rules in Lev 10 and 17?

[17] It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood."
Oops :o Ever had a good marbled steak? Did you make sure all fat was cut out. I think if you look at Lev 10 and 17 you will find that all of Christianity does not observe them and the only time the observance comes up is when it is against the practice of the Eucharist. These passages were forshadowings of Christ's sacrifice..

Blessings