the Lord's supper in the gospels

[westtexas]

What do y'all feel is the difference between a Catholic who believes in a literal flesh and blood Eucharist and an Evangelical who believes in a symbolic sacrament who is truly drawing closer to our Lord and remembering the sacrifice on Calvary?
Westtexas

The Eucharist is symbollic of the sacrifice of Jesus, but it is the literal real presence of his body and blood. Both views are part of Eucharistic doctrine.

Thanks for the link, I look forward to reading thru it. It wasn't in the link you provided but Cyril of Jerusalem said in his catechetical lecture 23, and I am paraphrasing because I didn't write it down, but he said that the Eucharist BY FAITH was a symbol of the literal Body and Blood. I can relate to this view, what do you or Joe think about the above question? Is there a difference in your opinion?
Westtexas

 

[chestertonrules]

What do y'all feel is the difference between a Catholic who believes in a literal flesh and blood Eucharist and an Evangelical who believes in a symbolic sacrament who is truly drawing closer to our Lord and remembering the sacrifice on Calvary?
Westtexas

The Eucharist is symbollic of the sacrifice of Jesus, but it is the literal real presence of his body and blood. Both views are part of Eucharistic doctrine.

Thanks for the link, I look forward to reading thru it. It wasn't in the link you provided but Cyril of Jerusalem said in his catechetical lecture 23, and I am paraphrasing because I didn't write it down, but he said that the Eucharist BY FAITH was a symbol of the literal Body and Blood. I can relate to this view, what do you or Joe think about the above question? Is there a difference in your opinion?
Westtexas

That is consistent with Catholic teaching. It tastes like bread and wine.

Ambrose has similar thoughts here:

"Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed… . Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures… . Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: `For our fathers ate spiritual food and drink spiritual drink.' [1 Cor. 10:2-4] For the body of God is a spiritual body."

-"On the Mysteries" 9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.:

And from the Catechism:

III. THE EUCHARIST IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION

The signs of bread and wine

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine. . . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.155 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c1a3.htm

 

[glorydaz]

Why do so many people have a hard time with...

"THIS IS MY BODY" said while holding a piece of bread and telling them to eat it, and again "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT", holding the cup...???

Why do so many people insist that Jesus was speaking in riddles at His last meal with His friends on His way to a painful death??? Where does Jesus explain the meaning of this so-called "metaphor"? When is blood used as a metaphor in Scriptures???

He said the Bread He will give is His flesh. Then, He offers everyone what looks like a piece of bread and calls it "my body".

Either Jesus was really confused, or there was something more to this... It takes something other than the fleshy mind to accept this.

Regards

People have a hard time with it because it is so obviously not speaking of Jesus' literal flesh and blood. It is the New Covenant. We enter through the veil (that is to say, His flesh).

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

 

[francisdesales]

Hello Francis or Chesterton, help me to understand something. It seems to me that the Early Fathers had at least some sense of symbolism and metaphors in the Eucharist. This is a quote from Clement of Alexandria--

( Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;" describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise--- Clement of Alexandria-Paedagogus Book 1 Ch. 6)

What do y'all feel is the difference between a Catholic who believes in a literal flesh and blood Eucharist and an Evangelical who believes in a symbolic sacrament who is truly drawing closer to our Lord and remembering the sacrifice on Calvary?
Westtexas

Westtexas,

Hello.

I think what is at issue here is whether the Eucharist is ONLY a symbol, ONLY a sign. There is a lot of profound and deep theological issues underlying this insistence upon Christ actually being present in the "accidents" of bread and wine. Thus, the Church Fathers recognize both aspects. I am not aware of a single citation from before 1000 AD that speaks of the Eucharist as ONLY a symbol and that the "Bread from Heaven" is only a piece of bread that is supposed to call to mind what Jesus did... Jesus said the Bread HE would provide would be SUPERIOR to the manna! So how can an ordinary piece of bread that helps us to "recall our Lord" (as in at "Evangelical gatherings") be superior to manna that FELL FROM THE HEAVENS??? It is not.

So what makes this bread superior to manna?

The issue is Presence. Is Jesus willing to come to us and share of Himself in such an intimate manner? Recall WHY the Jews did not drink blood. It was meant for God - the life of the creature. So to the Jew first hearing those words "drink my blood", what is Jesus saying?

"I am giving you my life!"

God desires that we share in the divine nature (Peter). He REALLY is drawing us to Himself to BECOME like God Himself - not to be omnipresent or all-power, but to become as Christ, the pioneer of whom mankind is to become. Thus, for us, the Eucharist is MUCH more than just a remembrance. It is our SOURCE of our Christian walk, since it is JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF who has come to abide in us!!!

He abides in us and we in Him. What better way to make this so by Him sharing in His LITERAL LIFE!

This only touches the surface of what the first Christians taught. I hope you are reading other Fathers to help to explain this insistence upon the Real Presence - they can explain it better than I.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

People have a hard time with it because it is so obviously not speaking of Jesus' literal flesh and blood. It is the New Covenant.

It obviously is... What was the Fluid in the cup at the Last Supper that He passed around?

Apparently, when you are reading John 6, you are having difficulties with "truly, truly, you must eat my flesh". I suggest you consider taking your advice and reading the Word more carefully, since the Spirit has told me that 2000 years of Spirit-led people are not wrong. We must eat Jesus' flesh. Whether we understand that or not is not at issue. What is important is that we OBEY God and have faith that what we are eating is indeed the flesh of Christ.

Do not try to rationalize mysteries, Glorydaz. They are not meant to be completely and rationally worked out. Just say "Amen".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Thanks for the link, I look forward to reading thru it. It wasn't in the link you provided but Cyril of Jerusalem said in his catechetical lecture 23, and I am paraphrasing because I didn't write it down, but he said that the Eucharist BY FAITH was a symbol of the literal Body and Blood. I can relate to this view, what do you or Joe think about the above question? Is there a difference in your opinion?
Westtexas

That is consistent with Catholic teaching. It tastes like bread and wine.

Ambrose has similar thoughts here:

"Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed… . Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures… . Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: `For our fathers ate spiritual food and drink spiritual drink.' [1 Cor. 10:2-4] For the body of God is a spiritual body."

-"On the Mysteries" 9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.:

Excellent selection, Chesterton, because "On the Mysteries" was also preached to newly baptized Catholics, just as Cyril of Jeruselem's Lectures.

Indeed, Christ's flesh is meant to be spiritual food, since its purpose is spiritual, not corporal. The hunger it feeds is not for our stomach, but our souls. The presence is indeed quite real, but the intent is to feed the spirit, to unite us with Whom we desperately seek, as the deer seeking water...

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

People have a hard time with it because it is so obviously not speaking of Jesus' literal flesh and blood. It is the New Covenant.

It obviously is... What was the Fluid in the cup at the Last Supper that He passed around?

Apparently, when you are reading John 6, you are having difficulties with "truly, truly, you must eat my flesh". I suggest you consider taking your advice and reading the Word more carefully, since the Spirit has told me that 2000 years of Spirit-led people are not wrong. We must eat Jesus' flesh. Whether we understand that or not is not at issue. What is important is that we OBEY God and have faith that what we are eating is indeed the flesh of Christ.

Do not try to rationalize mysteries, Glorydaz. They are not meant to be completely and rationally worked out. Just say "Amen".

Regards

It isn't rationalizing to understand the difference between physical and spiritual. Jesus is the bread "of life" that "came down" from heaven as the manna in the wilderness came to the children of Israel. It's symbolic as is everything else that was given from the OT. Jesus' being a "sacrificial lamb" is the same thing. He was not an actual Lamb, and we do not eat His actual flesh.

 

[francisdesales]

[It isn't rationalizing to understand the difference between physical and spiritual. Jesus is the bread "of life" that "came down" from heaven as the manna in the wilderness came to the children of Israel. It's symbolic as is everything else that was given from the OT. Jesus' being a "sacrificial lamb" is the same thing. He was not an actual Lamb, and we do not eat His actual flesh.

LOL!

Please explain how your "communion crackers and grape juice" are SUPERIOR to the MANNA THAT FELL FROM HEAVEN! Your crackers are bought at the grocery store and are crackers, nothing more. They are not from God! Thus, in your efforts to deny the literal sense, you overturn the meaning of John 6, making the "bread from heaven", Jesus' Flesh, to be inferior to the Manna!

Jesus said the liquid in the chalice was the blood of the New Covenant. Moses didn't use SYMBOLIC BLOOD when He made the OLD Covenant. Isn't the OLD Covenant INFERIOR to the New??? And yet, you tell me otherwise with your symbolic-only language.

Feel free to reject Jesus's Words, but there is no symbolic language at the Last Supper. THIS IS MY BODY. Superior to the Manna. Symbols are not superior to the real thing, GD...

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

[It isn't rationalizing to understand the difference between physical and spiritual. Jesus is the bread "of life" that "came down" from heaven as the manna in the wilderness came to the children of Israel. It's symbolic as is everything else that was given from the OT. Jesus' being a "sacrificial lamb" is the same thing. He was not an actual Lamb, and we do not eat His actual flesh.

LOL!

Please explain how your "communion crackers and grape juice" are SUPERIOR to the MANNA THAT FELL FROM HEAVEN! Your crackers are bought at the grocery store and are crackers, nothing more. They are not from God! Thus, in your efforts to deny the literal sense, you overturn the meaning of John 6, making the "bread from heaven", Jesus' Flesh, to be inferior to the Manna!

Jesus said the liquid in the chalice was the blood of the New Covenant. Moses didn't use SYMBOLIC BLOOD when He made the OLD Covenant. Isn't the OLD Covenant INFERIOR to the New??? And yet, you tell me otherwise with your symbolic-only language.

Feel free to reject Jesus's Words, but there is no symbolic language at the Last Supper. THIS IS MY BODY. Superior to the Manna. Symbols are not superior to the real thing, GD...

Regards

Spiritual is always superior to the flesh, Joe.

 

[chestertonrules]

[

Spiritual is always superior to the flesh, Joe.[/quote]

The WORD became flesh.

 

[francisdesales]

Spiritual is always superior to the flesh, Joe.

GD,

You didn't answer my question...

In what ways are your crackers from Walmart superior to the heavenly manna?

My "bread from heaven" is superior because it IS the FLESH OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR...
It's from heaven.

That's what He said, and that's what I believe.

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

Spiritual is always superior to the flesh, Joe.

GD,

You didn't answer my question...

In what ways are your crackers from Walmart superior to the heavenly manna?

My "bread from heaven" is superior because it IS the FLESH OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR...
It's from heaven.

That's what He said, and that's what I believe.

Regards

We don't use "crackers from Walmart" and your use of that term is simply an attempt to belittle what Christians believe. You're not fooling me, Joe.

We break bread in remembrance of Jesus' work on the cross...just as He instructed. We reflect back to His suffering for the remission of our sins, and we look forward to His coming again.

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

We are members of the body of Christ....that's how we are to be partakers. Not that we eat the literal body of Christ, but that we show we are the body of Christ. It's a time to put away any divisions and reconcile as one body.

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?

 

[chestertonrules]

We are members of the body of Christ....that's how we are to be partakers. Not that we eat the literal body of Christ, but that we show we are the body of Christ. It's a time to put away any divisions and reconcile as one body.

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 blood of Christ has never referred to the Church.

1 Cor 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

 

[glorydaz]

We are members of the body of Christ....that's how we are to be partakers. Not that we eat the literal body of Christ, but that we show we are the body of Christ. It's a time to put away any divisions and reconcile as one body.

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 blood of Christ has never referred to the Church.

1 Cor 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

I did not say the church is the blood of Christ. I'm not sure where you get such ideas. I do know that the bread and wine are not the literal flesh and blood of Christ. You can claim He's the door, too, but that doesn't mean He's a door.

 

[chestertonrules]

[
I did not say the church is the blood of Christ. I'm not sure where you get such ideas. I do know that the bread and wine are not the literal flesh and blood of Christ. You can claim He's the door, too, but that doesn't mean He's a door.

When Jesus said he was the door, the disciples understood his metaphor. When he said eat my flesh and drink my blood they were shocked and many left him.

Why?

 

[glorydaz]

[
I did not say the church is the blood of Christ. I'm not sure where you get such ideas. I do know that the bread and wine are not the literal flesh and blood of Christ. You can claim He's the door, too, but that doesn't mean He's a door.

When Jesus said he was the door, the disciples understood his metaphor. When he said eat my flesh and drink my blood they were shocked and many left him.

Why?

Because those who left were not "of" us or they would have undoubtedly remained.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

They left because they thought He was speaking of His literal body and blood. Those who were spiritual knew better. The sayings of Jesus were too hard for some to accept, and they were without understanding. The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit.

 

[chestertonrules]

[qu

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

They left because they thought He was speaking of His literal body and blood. Those who were spiritual knew better. The sayings of Jesus were too hard for some to accept, and they were without understanding. The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit.

No, they left because the couldn't accept what he said.

If it was a metaphor, it would not have been such a hard teaching.

The Truth is in the early Church, and even Luther understood:

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.â€

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

 

[glorydaz]

I think Spurgeon has a clearer view...

The Lord's Supper

The Supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by Him the same night on which He was betrayed to be observed in His churches until the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance, and showing forth of the sacrifice of Himself in His death. It was also instituted by Christ to confirm believers in all the benefits of His death; - for their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him; - for their further engagement in and commitment to all the duties which they owe to Him; - and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him and with their fellow believers.

In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to His Father, nor is there any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin (of the living or the dead). There is only a memorial of that one offering up of Christ by Himself upon the cross once for all, the memorial being accompanied by a spiritual oblation of all possible praise to God for Calvary. Therefore, the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, being injurious to Christ's own sacrifice, which is the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to pray and bless the elements of bread and wine (so setting them apart from a common to a holy use) and to take and break the bread, then to take the cup, and to give both to the communicants, also communicating themselves.

The denial of the cup to the people, the practices of worshipping the elements, lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration, or reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.

The outward elements in this ordinance which are correctly set apart and used as Christ ordained, so closely portray Him as crucified, that they are sometimes truly (but figuratively) referred to in terms of the things they represent, such as the body and blood of Christ. However in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before.

The doctrine commonly called transubstantiation, which maintains that a change occurs in the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood, when consecrated by a priest or by any other way, is repugnant not only to Scripture but even to common sense and reason. It overthrows the nature of the ordinance, and both has been and is the cause of a host of superstitions and of gross idolatries.

Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly and spiritually by faith, truly and in fact, but not carnally and corporally, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death. The body and blood of Christ is not present corporally or carnally but it is spiritually present to the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements are present to their outward senses.

All ignorant and ungodly persons who are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ are equally unworthy of the Lord's Table, and therefore cannot without great sin against Him, take a share in these holy mysteries or be admitted to the Supper while they remain in that condition. Indeed those who receive (the elements) unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgement to themselves. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part30

 

[chestertonrules]

I think Spurgeon has a clearer view...

The Lord's Supper

The Supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by Him the same night on which He was betrayed to be observed in His churches until the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance, and showing forth of the sacrifice of Himself in His death. It was also instituted by Christ to confirm believers in all the benefits of His death; - for their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him; - for their further engagement in and commitment to all the duties which they owe to Him; - and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him and with their fellow believers.

In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to His Father, nor is there any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin (of the living or the dead). There is only a memorial of that one offering up of Christ by Himself upon the cross once for all, the memorial being accompanied by a spiritual oblation of all possible praise to God for Calvary. Therefore, the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, being injurious to Christ's own sacrifice, which is the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to pray and bless the elements of bread and wine (so setting them apart from a common to a holy use) and to take and break the bread, then to take the cup, and to give both to the communicants, also communicating themselves.

The denial of the cup to the people, the practices of worshipping the elements, lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration, or reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.

The outward elements in this ordinance which are correctly set apart and used as Christ ordained, so closely portray Him as crucified, that they are sometimes truly (but figuratively) referred to in terms of the things they represent, such as the body and blood of Christ. However in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before.

The doctrine commonly called transubstantiation, which maintains that a change occurs in the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood, when consecrated by a priest or by any other way, is repugnant not only to Scripture but even to common sense and reason. It overthrows the nature of the ordinance, and both has been and is the cause of a host of superstitions and of gross idolatries.

Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly and spiritually by faith, truly and in fact, but not carnally and corporally, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death. The body and blood of Christ is not present corporally or carnally but it is spiritually present to the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements are present to their outward senses.

All ignorant and ungodly persons who are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ are equally unworthy of the Lord's Table, and therefore cannot without great sin against Him, take a share in these holy mysteries or be admitted to the Supper while they remain in that condition. Indeed those who receive (the elements) unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgement to themselves. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part30

Spurgeon doesn't believe Jesus while Luther does. Spurgeon finds that the words of Jesus are a hard teaching, so he rejects them.

 

[francisdesales]

We don't use "crackers from Walmart" and your use of that term is simply an attempt to belittle what Christians believe. You're not fooling me, Joe.

Can you answer my question or not?

Is the bread/crackers superior to the Manna? Jesus said it would be. Is your" Eucharistic" bread that you break from heaven??? Jesus said it would be, not based on the remembrance, but what it WAS!!!

remember that.

We break bread in remembrance of Jesus' work on the cross...just as He instructed.

He said "DO THIS". What WAS "this" He was talking about? Do you do it? No, you don't.

We reflect back to His suffering for the remission of our sins, and we look forward to His coming again.

That is indeed part of it, but you are missing part of it...

Matthew 26:28-29" For this is my blood of the new testament,

What was "this", again???

MY BLOOD!

:yes

Was Jesus making a covenant, a new testament, with fake blood, while Moses used real blood? Again, the symbol is not superior to the real thing. You are avoiding the issue, GD. The Old Covenant was a shadow of the good things to come. You make it the other way around, as the manna is superior to your store-bought bread, your grape juice/wine is inferior to the blood that WAS the life of the being sacrificed. Our "wine" is the life of the BEING sacrificed, Jesus Christ. That life is given to us and He LITERALLY abides in us.

That is why Christ says "unless you eat my flesh, you will not have eternal life". It is by LITERALLY eating the life of Christ that He abides in us in a most personal and intimate way. Note the words in John 6 about HOW we abide in Christ. By eating His flesh.

During our Eucharist, and the Eucharist of the very first Christians, the "bread from heaven" was SUPERIOR to the bread given by Moses to the Jews. The blood in the cup of the NEW Covenant was superior to the blood sprinkled upon the Jews during the Old.

Was it or not? Were the instruments to bring about the New Covenant superior or not?

We are members of the body of Christ....that's how we are to be partakers. Not that we eat the literal body of Christ, but that we show we are the body of Christ. It's a time to put away any divisions and reconcile as one body.

Yes, it is time to reconcile the Body. Considering the Body has been remembering Christ for 2000 years in the same manner, eating the literal body of Christ, you should consider WHY Christians are adamant against the words of Jesus Christ.

We become partakers in the REAL Jesus Christ. Not a symbol. The New Covenant is SUPERIOR!

The "wine" in the cup, was blood. You have even posted the pertinent citation. Yet again, you refuse to contemplate that you are putting aside God's Word to maintain your incomplete understanding of what Christ has given us.

Why did the Jews not drink blood, GD?
What was God NOW offering to mankind, GD, with the sharing of this literal blood?

The issue that confuses you is the flesh and the form it takes.

God has taken on many forms, even the form of a man. If God chooses to present Himself as a piece of bread and a cup of wine, do you doubt Jesus' words? We participate in His life BY eating His flesh, drinking His blood, His actual, literal life being shared with us.

"1 Corinthians 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?

[/quote]

Yet again, you are citing my points. The cup - it is a communion in the blood and body of Christ. Not a communion with a symbol.

Regards