the Lord's supper in the gospels

[francisdesales]

So when Jesus broke the bread and said eat for this is my body, if I follow your logic, the bread turned into real physical flesh? Ok.....

Slowly backing away... :D

Another unbeliever...

The Eucharist is a sacrament that ultimately depends upon faith. Faith in the Words of our Lord who SAID "THIS IS MY BODY". Did it turn into physical flesh? No. It remained bread in appearance, physically. The form remains bread, but it is now flesh. The flesh of Jesus, as He said.

You are indeed "backing away", just as the original Jews who left the Christ did in John 6.

 

[stranger]

So when Jesus broke the bread and said eat for this is my body, if I follow your logic, the bread turned into real physical flesh? Ok.....

Slowly backing away... :D

Another unbeliever...

The Eucharist is a sacrament that ultimately depends upon faith. Faith in the Words of our Lord who SAID "THIS IS MY BODY". Did it turn into physical flesh? No. It remained bread in appearance, physically. The form remains bread, but it is now flesh. The flesh of Jesus, as He said.

You are indeed "backing away", just as the original Jews who left the Christ did in John 6.

Hi francis,

John 6 started the current interest in the Lord's Supper. The original group who left Jesus asked/murmured amongst themselves : How can this man give us his flesh to eat? At that point in time nothing more was revealed, no answer was given to the question. Nor did the group 'hang around' to find out - they departed.

Looking at this from a well known construction -- our Lord Jesus Christ is prophet, priest and King. One can anticpate that the words of John 6, as well as those of Matt 26:26ff are prophetic. If the words of John 6 are read as prophetic -- which I believe they are, then Jesus is speaking prophetically when he says: Whoever eats My flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.

In a prophetic context the question 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?' made sense only at the revealing of the new covenant and the words spoken in the upper room. If the bread and the cup are not God's answer to the question - 'how can this man give us flesh to eat' what is? A prophetic word produced an immediate response 'they departed' - It is not surprising then that these words of prophesy continue to divide today. So we are at the fork in the road!

blessings brother

 

[chestertonrules]

[

Hi francis,

John 6 started the current interest in the Lord's Supper. The original group who left Jesus asked/murmured amongst themselves : How can this man give us his flesh to eat? At that point in time nothing more was revealed, no answer was given to the question. Nor did the group 'hang around' to find out - they departed.

Looking at this from a well known construction -- our Lord Jesus Christ is prophet, priest and King. One can anticpate that the words of John 6, as well as those of Matt 26:26ff are prophetic. If the words of John 6 are read as prophetic -- which I believe they are, then Jesus is speaking prophetically when he says: Whoever eats My flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.

In a prophetic context the question 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?' made sense only at the revealing of the new covenant and the words spoken in the upper room. If the bread and the cup are not God's answer to the question - 'how can this man give us flesh to eat' what is? A prophetic word produced an immediate response 'they departed' - It is not surprising then that these words of prophesy continue to divide today. So we are at the fork in the road!

blessings brother

Good point.

Also important, John wrote his gospel 20 years or more after the events occurred. John probably had participated in hundreds if not thousands of eucharistic feasts by the time this is written. It is likely that he understood the implications of what he was writing.

 

[Mysteryman]

[

Hi francis,

John 6 started the current interest in the Lord's Supper. The original group who left Jesus asked/murmured amongst themselves : How can this man give us his flesh to eat? At that point in time nothing more was revealed, no answer was given to the question. Nor did the group 'hang around' to find out - they departed.

Looking at this from a well known construction -- our Lord Jesus Christ is prophet, priest and King. One can anticpate that the words of John 6, as well as those of Matt 26:26ff are prophetic. If the words of John 6 are read as prophetic -- which I believe they are, then Jesus is speaking prophetically when he says: Whoever eats My flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.

In a prophetic context the question 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?' made sense only at the revealing of the new covenant and the words spoken in the upper room. If the bread and the cup are not God's answer to the question - 'how can this man give us flesh to eat' what is? A prophetic word produced an immediate response 'they departed' - It is not surprising then that these words of prophesy continue to divide today. So we are at the fork in the road!

blessings brother

Good point.

Also important, John wrote his gospel 20 years or more after the events occurred. John probably had participated in hundreds if not thousands of eucharistic feasts by the time this is written. It is likely that he understood the implications of what he was writing.

And he more than likely participated in zero, if not thousands of zero's times. Oh, and I am sure "he" understood what he was writting !

 

[faithtransforms]

I'm not sure what you're asking. It is clear that Jesus asked us to take communion in remembrance of Him and as a symbolic reception of the new covenant (this is the new covenant in My blood). Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

Hi faithtransforms,

Since there are a handful of different interpretations about what Jesus' words mean -- I am trying to find a point where the interpretations first start to differ from one another.

There is no problem with the word 'remembrance ' because it is found twice in the context of the Lord's supper (Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24,25)

You used the word 'symbolic' - my question is where did the word 'symbolic' come from?

blessings sister

Well, the new covenant was not established until after Jesus had shed His Blood. So when they were drinking it, it was to represent the receiving of the new covenant. Now when we take communion, it is in remembrance of him and the bread symbolizes His body and the wine symbolizes His Blood, unless you are into the whole transubstantiation thing.

 

[chestertonrules]

Well, the new covenant was not established until after Jesus had shed His Blood. So when they were drinking it, it was to represent the receiving of the new covenant. Now when we take communion, it is in remembrance of him and the bread symbolizes His body and the wine symbolizes His Blood, unless you are into the whole transubstantiation thing.

Can you find a single Christian in the first 1000 years of Christianity who shares your view?

I once believed as you do, but I discovered that this view was virtually unknown until after the Reformation.

Here are 30 early Christian leaders who believe in the real and literal presence of the body and blood in the Eucharist:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[stranger]

I'm not sure what you're asking. It is clear that Jesus asked us to take communion in remembrance of Him and as a symbolic reception of the new covenant (this is the new covenant in My blood). Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

Hi faithtransforms,

Since there are a handful of different interpretations about what Jesus' words mean -- I am trying to find a point where the interpretations first start to differ from one another.

There is no problem with the word 'remembrance ' because it is found twice in the context of the Lord's supper (Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24,25)

You used the word 'symbolic' - my question is where did the word 'symbolic' come from?

blessings sister

Well, the new covenant was not established until after Jesus had shed His Blood. So when they were drinking it, it was to represent the receiving of the new covenant. Now when we take communion, it is in remembrance of him and the bread symbolizes His body and the wine symbolizes His Blood, unless you are into the whole transubstantiation thing.

Hi faithtransforms,

No transubstantiation thing -I'm confining myself to what is revealed in scripture and not much more than can be safely inferred from the text.

The new covenant or any covenant or testament has to be made before the death of the person making it. After the death of Christ on the cross it came into force. So I guess the first Lord's supper was special.

Now, let me get back to the question I asked earlier. You said the bread 'symbolises' His body and the wine 'symbolises' His blood. I've pointed out that the word 'symbolises' is an interpretation of Jesus' words. How does that arise from the text?

If ONLY the actual words of Jesus are read from Matt 26:26ff , without mentioning 'symbolises', would you take part in such a Lord's Supper at your place of worship?

blessings sister,

 

[francisdesales]

Hi francis,

John 6 started the current interest in the Lord's Supper. The original group who left Jesus asked/murmured amongst themselves : How can this man give us his flesh to eat? At that point in time nothing more was revealed, no answer was given to the question. Nor did the group 'hang around' to find out - they departed.

Indeed, it is my contention that no one present knew exactly what Jesus had in mind specifically to provide flesh to "gnaw" upon, but they DID hear His Words and understood He was not speaking metaphorically. The group that DID "hang around" did not get an additional piece of understanding. Sometimes, God works that way within us. I often think of how He left Mary in the dark, when Gabriel came to her to announce she would be with child - and she simply said "let it be done to me". I don't think Mary was in on how this would happen, she just trusted God would do it, provide a human being from a virgin's womb. I think the faith of the disciples who remained also felt the same way.

"Jesus, we don't get it, but you have the words of eternal life. It will become clear later."

Looking at this from a well known construction -- our Lord Jesus Christ is prophet, priest and King. One can anticpate that the words of John 6, as well as those of Matt 26:26ff are prophetic. If the words of John 6 are read as prophetic -- which I believe they are, then Jesus is speaking prophetically when he says: Whoever eats My flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.

In a prophetic context the question 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?' made sense only at the revealing of the new covenant and the words spoken in the upper room.

I agree, that the Christ did not fully reveal what He was talking about until the Last Supper when He said, "this is my flesh", as He passed it around for them to eat. Perhaps the light bulb went on in their heads - "AH, this is His flesh we are to eat". With the Spirit's coming, the depths of that offering made more sense later on, I would think.

If the bread and the cup are not God's answer to the question - 'how can this man give us flesh to eat' what is? A prophetic word produced an immediate response 'they departed' - It is not surprising then that these words of prophesy continue to divide today. So we are at the fork in the road!

Again, I agree with you.

Jesus did say that His Words would divide. Men must choose, there is no passiveness to the Word. Either one says "yes", I believe what You said, Lord, even if I don't get it right away."

or

"no", I believe only what I have rationalized." Whether it is rationalizing homosexual behavior, fornication, or disbelief that we can partake in the actual flesh of Christ, it is rationalizing away from the words of Christ in preference for our own ways.

Brother in Christ

 

[francisdesales]

Oh, and I am sure "he" understood what he was writting !

Which is why we should take seriously what he ACTUALLY wrote...

 

[francisdesales]

Well, the new covenant was not established until after Jesus had shed His Blood.

Which was AT THE LAST SUPPER, my sister...!!

THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT. HERE! In this cup! DRINK IT!!!

Moses established the covenant by sprinkling the blood onto the people. Jesus was establishing is by giving them His blood, His LITERAL LIFE, to the "people".

So when they were drinking it, it was to represent the receiving of the new covenant.

WHAT was the "it" in the cup??? What does Jesus Himself call it? Does He say "take this wine"???

Now when we take communion, it is in remembrance of him and the bread symbolizes His body and the wine symbolizes His Blood, unless you are into the whole transubstantiation thing.

IT is and much much more... "IT" is the source of our faith and our Christian walk, because it is JESUS HIMSELF! Thus, the Eucharist was so important, recognizing Jesus in the breaking of the bread... Because He is really there! Not just because we remember Him.

Regards

 

[Mysteryman]

Oh, and I am sure "he" understood what he was writting !

Which is why we should take seriously what he ACTUALLY wrote...

We should take seriously what he meant by what he said.

 

[francisdesales]

We should take seriously what he meant by what he said.

He meant what He said... :bigfrown

Don't even bother writing any hogwash that you know what He meant, the stuff that He DIDN'T say...

 

[stranger]

Oh, and I am sure "he" understood what he was writting !

Which is why we should take seriously what he ACTUALLY wrote...

We should take seriously what he meant by what he said.

Mysteryman,

In any event what Jesus 'meant' is simply an interpretation.

Q Would you partake of the Lord's Supper where the text of John 26:26ff is read out without further comment or interpretation?

blessings brother

 

[Mysteryman]

We should take seriously what he meant by what he said.[/quote]

Mysteryman,

In any event what Jesus 'meant' is simply an interpretation.

Q Would you partake of the Lord's Supper where the text of John 26:26ff is read out without further comment or interpretation?

blessings brother[/quote]


Hi Stranger

The problem is, is that we are not living during the time period of Matt.26:27 ( John 26:26 ? ). WE now live during the grace dispensation. And Paul put to rest those who wanted to do the Lord's supper -- I Corinth. 11:20 - "this is not to eat the Lord's supper"

Also, in the gospels, they didn't "partake" , they "took part". We now "partake" from a spiritual POV. Because we "are" the body of Christ, for we "are" that one bread - I Corinth. 10:17. Also notice in I Corinth. 10:16 where it states - "The cup of blessing" -- which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? "

In Matt. 26:27 and again in verse 28 , the cup is empty, for it is the shed blood of Christ. We bless the fact, that he shed his blood for us. This means that the cup was empty because he shed his blood for us, thus his body was empty of blood. We have been cleansed from all unrighteousness, and from the sin of death, because of his shed blood.

In I Corinth. 10:21 Paul expresses the difference between the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. < This should catch one's attention, because never has the devil shed any blood for anyone. So the cup is not speaking here of one's blood, but of spiritual truth , verses spiritual untruth. To drink here, means to "take in". We are not to "take in" anything from the table of devils. WE are only to "take in" from the Lord's table.

Bless

 

[chestertonrules]

The problem is, is that we are not living during the time period of Matt.26:27 ( John 26:26 ? ). WE now live during the grace dispensation. And Paul put to rest those who wanted to do the Lord's supper -- I Corinth. 11:20 - "this is not to eat the Lord's supper"

I've come to the conclusion that you must be a practical joker. Nobody could lie this blatantly using scripture unless it was a joke.

Just in case someone didn't recognize the joke, I'll provide what Paul actually said:

18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

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.

 

[Mysteryman]

The problem is, is that we are not living during the time period of Matt.26:27 ( John 26:26 ? ). WE now live during the grace dispensation. And Paul put to rest those who wanted to do the Lord's supper -- I Corinth. 11:20 - "this is not to eat the Lord's supper"

I've come to the conclusion that you must be a practical joker. Nobody could lie this blatantly using scripture unless it was a joke.

Just in case someone didn't recognize the joke, I'll provide what Paul actually said:

18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

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.

What I wrote is no joke. However, the translation you are using here is a joke. Thanks for the laugh - :rolling :D

By the way, would you tell everyone which translation you used here ?

 

[chestertonrules]

The problem is, is that we are not living during the time period of Matt.26:27 ( John 26:26 ? ). WE now live during the grace dispensation. And Paul put to rest those who wanted to do the Lord's supper -- I Corinth. 11:20 - "this is not to eat the Lord's supper"

I've come to the conclusion that you must be a practical joker. Nobody could lie this blatantly using scripture unless it was a joke.

Just in case someone didn't recognize the joke, I'll provide what Paul actually said:

18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

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.

What I wrote is no joke. However, the translation you are using here is a joke. Thanks for the laugh - :rolling :D

By the way, would you tell everyone which translation you used here ?

It's the NIV. Feel free to provide a translation that changes the meaning.

Does this mean that you were serious?

 

[Mysteryman]

The problem is, is that we are not living during the time period of Matt.26:27 ( John 26:26 ? ). WE now live during the grace dispensation. And Paul put to rest those who wanted to do the Lord's supper -- I Corinth. 11:20 - "this is not to eat the Lord's supper"

[/quote]


I've come to the conclusion that you must be a practical joker. Nobody could lie this blatantly using scripture unless it was a joke.

Just in case someone didn't recognize the joke, I'll provide what Paul actually said:

18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

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.[/quote]


What I wrote is no joke. However, the translation you are using here is a joke. Thanks for the laugh - :rolling :D

By the way, would you tell everyone which translation you used here ?[/quote]


It's the NIV. Feel free to provide a translation that changes the meaning.

Does this mean that you were serious?[/quote]



HI

Just for your info, and because I love you and everyone else here - The NIV is a joke ! Just compare it to the many other translations, and it should be evident.

 

[chestertonrules]

HI

Just for your info, and because I love you and everyone else here - The NIV is a joke ! Just compare it to the many other translations, and it should be evident.

Fine.

Let's look at a few others and you can tell us how they differ in meaning:

NIV:
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.

KJV:
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Douay-Rheims Bible
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord

ESV:
27Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

[stranger]

We should take seriously what he meant by what he said.

Mysteryman,

In any event what Jesus 'meant' is simply an interpretation.

Q Would you partake of the Lord's Supper where the text of Matt 26:26ff is read out without further comment or interpretation?

blessings brother[/quote]


Hi Stranger

The problem is, is that we are not living during the time period of Matt.26:27 ( John 26:26 ? ). WE now live during the grace dispensation. And Paul put to rest those who wanted to do the Lord's supper -- I Corinth. 11:20 - "this is not to eat the Lord's supper"

My mistake John 26:26 was supposed to read Matt 26:26. I am curious about your chronology - when do you think the 'grace dispensation' started? Surely by the time Paul was appointed an apostle and established the church at Corinth --- it was already the 'grace dispensation.'

My question was: Would you partake of the Lord's Supper where the text of John 26:26ff is read out without further comment or interpretation?

You replied:
Also, in the gospels, they didn't "partake" , they "took part". We now "partake" from a spiritual POV. Because we "are" the body of Christ, for we "are" that one bread - I Corinth. 10:17. Also notice in I Corinth. 10:16 where it states - "The cup of blessing" -- which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? "

So, I take that means no?

In Matt. 26:27 and again in verse 28 , the cup is empty, for it is the shed blood of Christ. We bless the fact, that he shed his blood for us. This means that the cup was empty because he shed his blood for us, thus his body was empty of blood. We have been cleansed from all unrighteousness, and from the sin of death, because of his shed blood.

Presumeably the cup may have been empty after the disciples all drank from it.

In I Corinth. 10:21 Paul expresses the difference between the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. < This should catch one's attention, because never has the devil shed any blood for anyone. So the cup is not speaking here of one's blood, but of spiritual truth , verses spiritual untruth. To drink here, means to "take in". We are not to "take in" anything from the table of devils. WE are only to "take in" from the Lord's table.

Haven't covered this, but yes there is a strong contrast here.

Ok, thanks for your reply.

blessings brother