On Communion

[Jim Parker]

Was it a right thing? Not thinking but knowing there were some not saved partaking in the communion; is that wrong to allow those to partake? Should it only be Christians?

It should be only Christians.

1Co 11:27-30 (NKJV) Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. (are dead!)

To allow them to partake unworthily is to allow them to "drink judgment upon" themselves by "not discerning the Lord's body."

iakov the fool

 

[GodsGrace]

No. That idea didn't show up for another 1000 years in the 11th century and wasn't officially defined until the council of Trent in 1551. That's 1500 years later!

The Church of the first century did not use the term or teach the ideas that come along with the term.

iakov the fool

I agree with your last sentence in post no. 15:

So, we probably shouldn't consider sitting around the kitchen table having PB&J sandwiches and a glass of milk to be "Communion."

And regarding transubstantiation: Maybe it was defined in 1500, but that Justin Martyr quote seems pretty clear.
Does it make a difference when it was defined if it always existed? I mean, a rose by any other name...it's still a rose.

John 6 always seemed literal to me. Scary, huh? And if anybody would care to explain the difference between transubstantiation and the real presence. I hate learning from the internet - it doesn't get into the "heart" of the matter!

Wondering

 

[Edward]

Well if when Jesus blessed the bread and wine, and gave thanks...it literally (spiritually) turned into his body and blood...why couldn't a pb-j?

What's Eucharist? A type of bread, or some bread that's been blessed by a priest?!

We don't need a priest anymore, thanks to Jesus (thank you Jesus!)

Scripture repeatedly speaks of the power of the spoken word and intent of the heart...

Quantum physics has proven that words change the molecular makeup of particles. The Japanese scientist proved that words and sounds change waters structure...so why not a pbj?

Good topic.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well if when Jesus blessed the bread and wine, and gave thanks...it literally (spiritually) turned into his body and blood...why couldn't a pb-j?

What's Eucharist? A type of bread, or some bread that's been blessed by a priest?!

We don't need a priest anymore, thanks to Jesus (thank you Jesus!)

Scripture repeatedly speaks of the power of the spoken word and intent of the heart...

Quantum physics has proven that words change the molecular makeup of particles. The Japanese scientist proved that words and sounds change waters structure...so why not a pbj?

Good topic.

I'm really dense.
Is pbj a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Have pity. Not all of us live in the states. Although I do have a faint memory of this...

So first you say: It literally (spiritually) turned into the body and blood.

You can't serve pbj at a service. it wouldn't be practical.

Plus, Jesus did use bread and wine.

So at this point I'm thinking that you understand John 6 to be spiritual - as many other things Jesus said.

Okay. But then you explain how words could change the molecular structure of things, like water.
So now you take John 6 literally?

Help me out.

Wondering

 

[Edward]

I'm really dense.
Is pbj a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Have pity. Not all of us live in the states. Although I do have a faint memory of this...

So first you say: It literally (spiritually) turned into the body and blood.

You can't serve pbj at a service. it wouldn't be practical.

Plus, Jesus did use bread and wine.

So at this point I'm thinking that you understand John 6 to be spiritual - as many other things Jesus said.

Okay. But then you explain how words could change the molecular structure of things, like water.
So now you take John 6 literally?

Help me out.

Wondering

Pbj= peanut butter n jelly sandwich, yes.

Pbj at a service would not be practical, BUT! Jesus did say, as often as you eat, do this in remembrance of me...!!

Or are we staying that we need to have a special cracker, or its not valid? What if the pastor was too busy or unknowing to bless the Ritz crackers before a communion service? Not valid?

Jesus did use bread n wine, a staple of the times...if they had no bread but only crackers, would they have had to go to market first? I think not.

I do lean towards literal interpretation Brother, in most of scripture.
We don't really know how much our words have effect in the spiritual (Kingdom) realm, perhaps much more so than we realize. If we're to be judged upon our very thoughts (Matthew 5:28), and give account for our words (Matthew 12:36), then perhaps this is why?

This is a good thread, I'm not saying I'm right. Just tossing it around trying to understand. So feel free to poke holes in my theorem.

 

[Free]

Was it a right thing? Not thinking but knowing there were some not saved partaking in the communion; is that wrong to allow those to partake? Should it only be Christians?

Definitely only for believers. To partake as an unbeliever would be to profess something--the death and resurrection of Christ for our sins--that one does not believe. If Christians died for taking part sinfully, how much more the unbeliever.

 

[childeye]

The Christ is the Word of God made flesh and blood. And he is food and drink that are to be consumed by believing in him. He is not food for your stomach, but for your soul. The eating of him, when correctly understood that it is by faith that he is consumed, declares and bestows the righteousness of God to a man's soul, and purifies the conscience. There is no food ingested that will make the flesh righteous. It is a spiritual food.
Hebrews 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
John 6:27.
27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
John 6:33
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
Matthew 5:6
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Romans 1:17.
17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.

 

[GodsGrace]

Definitely only for believers. To partake as an unbeliever would be to profess something--the death and resurrection of Christ for our sins--that one does not believe. If Christians died for taking part sinfully, how much more the unbeliever.

I've never understood how a christian could take part in communion sinfully if all he'd have to do is confess his sins. The Grace Movement, Joseph Prince in particular, says that it's not that they sinned and then took part in communion but that the MANNER in which it was conducted or the attitude in which it was received was wrong.

It did make sense to me.

Wondering

 

[childeye]

Definitely only for believers. To partake as an unbeliever would be to profess something--the death and resurrection of Christ for our sins--that one does not believe. If Christians died for taking part sinfully, how much more the unbeliever.

I would add that it's not just believing, but why and what we are believing. In that sense, I believe there are supposed to be unbelievers partaking. Otherwise there is no judgment at the cup of Christ. There exists a problem with semantics when trying to articulate this..
Psalm 23:5
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies.

 

[GodsGrace]

Pbj= peanut butter n jelly sandwich, yes.

Pbj at a service would not be practical, BUT! Jesus did say, as often as you eat, do this in remembrance of me...!!

Or are we staying that we need to have a special cracker, or its not valid? What if the pastor was too busy or unknowing to bless the Ritz crackers before a communion service? Not valid?

Jesus did use bread n wine, a staple of the times...if they had no bread but only crackers, would they have had to go to market first? I think not.

I do lean towards literal interpretation Brother, in most of scripture.
We don't really know how much our words have effect in the spiritual (Kingdom) realm, perhaps much more so than we realize. If we're to be judged upon our very thoughts (Matthew 5:28), and give account for our words (Matthew 12:36), then perhaps this is why?

This is a good thread, I'm not saying I'm right. Just tossing it around trying to understand. So feel free to poke holes in my theorem.

Way back when I was about 10 we'd have to kneel down to receive that host. (catholic) Host means sacrifice. Eucharist means to give thanks. We were taught to be very reverential toward the host. After all, it was Jesus' body and blood.

I do think that if the early Christians had no bread but only crackers, they would have run out to buy bread. There must have been a great respect for communion. They spoke about Jesus and His teachings and then they had this communal food that He had said to eat in memory of Him. Two big important parts: The Word and the eating - of the manna that never perishes.

Then I grew up and learned the theology pretty well and even taught there, and then I started to question everything. Many things didn't make sense to me. The one thing that always remained was the host. Luther died believing it was the B and B of Christ.

I've been told that I have to decide which verse of John 6 I want to believe is the right one:
John 6:40 or
John 6:54

Okay. But what about John 6:60. Why then did the disciples walk away from Jesus if He only meant what he said figuratively?

I love what you said about physics in post no. 23.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

I would add that it's not just believing, but why and what we believe.

Hi Childeye,

What do you mean by "why" we believe?

Wondering

 

[childeye]

Hi Childeye,

What do you mean by "why" we believe?

Wondering

When I was first presented with the Gospel, I was told that Christ died for our sins. I was also told that if I did not eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, I could not have eternal life. Some question arose within me...Why did he die for my sins?... How does his death pay for my sins? Is it morally right that the innocent should pay the punishment for the guilty? I therefore would not drink of it, until someone would answer my questions. I searched for years for answers from authority figures, such as Priests, Pastors, Elders. But no one I talked to could help me nor answer them for me. Since it was hard to articulate my feelings, I wrote this:

I was walking in despair because I hated myself and my burden of sin was great, and my only comfort was that there were others with burdens greater than my own. But alas, therefore I only loathed myself all the more. Then a man came to me holding a cup filled with the blood of the son of God, which had been shed through great torture. And he said, drink from this cup and you will be renewed and live forever. And I saw judgment at the cup. For if this son of God suffered torture and death so that I might be spared from a cruel and merciless prosecuter, I'd better drink from it so that his suffering will not have been in vain. But if it is to escape the righteous judgment that I have coming to me, I would rather die in my sins than be willing to harm one hair on his precious head.

 

[GodsGrace]

When I was first presented with the Gospel, I was told that Christ died for our sins. I was also told that if I did not eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, I could not have eternal life. Some question arose within me...Why did he die for my sins?... How does his death pay for my sins? Is it morally right that the innocent should pay the punishment for the guilty? I therefore would not drink of it, until someone would answer my questions. I searched for years for answers from authority figures, such as Priests, Pastors, Elders. But no one I talked to could help me nor answer them for me. Since it was hard to articulate my feelings, I wrote this:

I was walking in despair because I hated myself and my burden of sin was great, and my only comfort was that there were others with burdens greater than my own, but alas, therefore I loathed myself all the more. Then a man came to me holding a cup filled with the blood of the son of God, which had been shed through great torture. And he said, drink from this cup and you will be renewed and live forever. And I saw judgment at the cup. For if this son of God suffered torture and death so that I might be spared from a cruel and merciless prosecuter, I'd better drink from it so that his suffering will not have been in vain. But if it is to escape the righteous judgment that I have coming to me, I would rather die in my sins than be willing to harm one hair on his precious head.

Childeye,
You make me miss my brother who lives far away. He's a writer.

I see what you mean. I'm on another thread where the topic is fear of God. I was saying there how we should serve God out of Love and not out of Fear.

Yes, we're all lost and must be saved. May I be so bold as to say that whoever told you that you HAD to drink the blood and eat the flesh to be saved was wrong - very wrong.

Salvation is easy and requires calling on the name of the Lord. His death is your redemption. Nothing Else Is Needed. Whenever you hear "and you ALSO need this to be saved" - run.

Wondering

 

[childeye]

Childeye,
You make me miss my brother who lives far away. He's a writer.

I see what you mean. I'm on another thread where the topic is fear of God. I was saying there how we should serve God out of Love and not out of Fear.

Yes, we're all lost and must be saved. May I be so bold as to say that whoever told you that you HAD to drink the blood and eat the flesh to be saved was wrong - very wrong.

Salvation is easy and requires calling on the name of the Lord. His death is your redemption. Nothing Else Is Needed. Whenever you hear "and you ALSO need this to be saved" - run.

Wondering

You make me laugh. But where would I run to? I apologize, I should have said that these people showed me scripture about eating and drinking his flesh and blood.

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.

 

[GodsGrace]

You make me laugh. But where would I run to? I apologize, I should have said that these people showed me scripture about eating and drinking his flesh and blood.

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.

Oh! OK.

I meant that sometimes you hear that you have to believe and trust in Jesus AND be baptized or AND speak in tongues or AND do good works.

All that I mentioned are valid and a RESULT of being saved - but they do not save. Only Jesus does.

Where you would "run" to is church that believes that Jesus saves, and nothing else.

Wondering

 

[Jim Parker]

Maybe it was defined in 1500, but that Justin Martyr quote seems pretty clear.

The early church considered the change from bread & wine to body&blood to be a mystery and didn't try to define it.

Transubstantiation is a very specific definition that comes from the Roman church and does not appear until the 1100s. Since we cannot discuss Roman Catholic doctrine in this particular thread, I suggest that you google it to get a better understanding.

The ancient church simply accepted what they received from the apostles and didn't ask how God does what He does.

John 6 always seemed literal to me. Scary, huh?

I see no reason not to accept it at face value.

There is nothing in John 6 to suggest that what Jesus was presenting wans to be entirely understood as a parable or a metaphor or that it was "symbolic". (Which is code for, "I'm not believing that.") He did not explain what He meant to the disciples at a later time as He did with the parable of the sower (Luke 8:11-15) or the teaching on what defiles a person. (Mar 7:19-23)

My personal analysis/breakdown of the passage is as follows: (RSV)

THE BREAD OF LIFE – the metaphor

John 6:48(1) "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.
(2) I am the bread of life.
49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.
50(3) But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51(4) I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
(5) If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.

THE BREAD IS MY FLESH – the metaphor explained

(6) This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth,
(7) unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54(8) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 (9) For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56(10) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. (See John 15.)
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
(11) the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

THE BREAD OF LIFE – the lesson summarized

58(12) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but
(13) he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

I note that Peter's response to Jesus' question as to whether the disciples would also leave Him, because the teaching was hard, was, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." (John 6:68-69) Peter gave no indication that he understood.

my 2 kopecks

iakov the fool

 

[Roro1972]

The early church considered the change from bread & wine to body&blood to be a mystery and didn't try to define it.

Transubstantiation is a very specific definition that comes from the Roman church and does not appear until the 1100s. Since we cannot discuss Roman Catholic doctrine in this particular thread, I suggest that you google it to get a better understanding.

The ancient church simply accepted what they received from the apostles and didn't ask how God does what He does.



I see no reason not to accept it at face value.

There is nothing in John 6 to suggest that what Jesus was presenting wans to be entirely understood as a parable or a metaphor or that it was "symbolic". (Which is code for, "I'm not believing that.") He did not explain what He meant to the disciples at a later time as He did with the parable of the sower (Luke 8:11-15) or the teaching on what defiles a person. (Mar 7:19-23)

My personal analysis/breakdown of the passage is as follows: (RSV)

THE BREAD OF LIFE – the metaphor

John 6:48(1) "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.
(2) I am the bread of life.
49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.
50(3) But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51(4) I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
(5) If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.

THE BREAD IS MY FLESH – the metaphor explained

(6) This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth,
(7) unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54(8) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 (9) For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56(10) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. (See John 15.)
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
(11) the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

THE BREAD OF LIFE – the lesson summarized

58(12) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but
(13) he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

I note that Peter's response to Jesus' question as to whether the disciples would also leave Him, because the teaching was hard, was, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." (John 6:68-69) Peter gave no indication that he understood.

my 2 kopecks

iakov the fool

i like it but you still have not reached your 2 cents worth

 

[Jim Parker]

i like it but you still have not reached your 2 cents worth

What? You maybe want ein bissel locks and cream cheese with that bread?

iakov the fool

 

[childeye]

The early church considered the change from bread & wine to body&blood to be a mystery and didn't try to define it.

Transubstantiation is a very specific definition that comes from the Roman church and does not appear until the 1100s. Since we cannot discuss Roman Catholic doctrine in this particular thread, I suggest that you google it to get a better understanding.

The ancient church simply accepted what they received from the apostles and didn't ask how God does what He does.



I see no reason not to accept it at face value.

There is nothing in John 6 to suggest that what Jesus was presenting wans to be entirely understood as a parable or a metaphor or that it was "symbolic". (Which is code for, "I'm not believing that.") He did not explain what He meant to the disciples at a later time as He did with the parable of the sower (Luke 8:11-15) or the teaching on what defiles a person. (Mar 7:19-23)

My personal analysis/breakdown of the passage is as follows: (RSV)

THE BREAD OF LIFE – the metaphor

John 6:48(1) "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.
(2) I am the bread of life.
49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.
50(3) But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51(4) I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
(5) If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.

THE BREAD IS MY FLESH – the metaphor explained

(6) This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth,
(7) unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54(8) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 (9) For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56(10) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. (See John 15.)
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
(11) the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

THE BREAD OF LIFE – the lesson summarized

58(12) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but
(13) he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

I note that Peter's response to Jesus' question as to whether the disciples would also leave Him, because the teaching was hard, was, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." (John 6:68-69) Peter gave no indication that he understood.

my 2 kopecks

iakov the fool

Respectfully, How does the term "symbolic" come to mean, "I'm not believing that"...? To me the bread and wine are symbolic. The bread is his body, speaking of his existence as the man who is the expressed image of God, sent by God the Father. And the blood is symbolic of his sacrificial death as the lamb of God, so that sins may be forgiven. But I do believe that you are right to say, that the teaching was not easy to receive. For I do believe that Jesus meant to speak in ways that only certain hearts could receive and understand according to God's calling.

Also, I don't actually see the metaphor being explained in any of the scriptures you provided. To me, these are some scriptures that speak to me about what Jesus means by "eat" and "drink".
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

 

[Roro1972]

What? You maybe want ein bissel locks and cream cheese with that bread?

iakov the fool

you said my two kopeks ( post 36 )which doesn't equal 2 cents so as you were right I wanted the rest of your 2 cents
sorry it was a joke