Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
zeland

Where was the lamb at the Last Supper - the roasted lamb?

Recommended Posts

“Where was the lamb at the last supper” – the roasted lamb?

 

 

 

 

There is probably no more controversial topic between Catholics and Protestants than that of the Holy Eucharist. When Christ, at the last supper, said, “This is My Body – this is My Blood”, was He talking only symbolically or did He really mean that the bread and wine were to be miraculous transformed into His real Flesh and Blood, while still retaining the outward appearance of bread and wine? The Catholic response to this question is, a resounding, YES, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church, from apostolic times till now. Ever since the words of consecration were first spoken at the last supper, the apostles and their successors have believed in Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist.

 

This post is the first of three parts which are based on a letter I wrote to a Protestant friend in response to a previous conversation we had about what our Lord meant, at the last supper. So I thought I would share some of the ideas we discussed, with this forum. The discussion with my friend gave rise to the following question – “Where was the lamb at the last supper” – the roasted lamb? The answer to this question will lead us to the first of three scriptural proofs, which show that Christ was talking literally.

 

To begin our discussion, we should ask two questions just for clarity. Does Christ have the power to change bread and wine into his own body and blood? And secondly, if He does, did He will to do so? I think most people would agree that Christ does have such power. If He created the entire universe out of nothing, He can certainly change bread and wine into His own Body and Blood. So lets concentrate on the second question; was Christ talking literally when he said: “This is My Body”?

 

At the Last Supper, Christ was celebrating the Passover with his apostles. Now before going any further, we should refresh our memories concerning the requirements of the original Jewish Passover meal, the night before the Exodus. The people had to procure and eat a REAL lamb (for nourishment for the journey out of Egypt) - Exodus 12:8 (the Paschal lamb had to be eaten). Suppose a family didn’t like lamb, and decided to bake a cake in the shape of a lamb and symbolically eat that. What would have happened? The next morning, their first-born would be dead. The instructions for that first Passover were very specific: they had to eat a REAL lamb. Also, the Jews were commanded (three times) to do this, each year, as a perpetual remembrance of that event (Exodus 12: 14, 17, & 24).

 

Consider now the question I mentioned at the beginning of this post: “Where was the lamb at the last supper” – the roasted lamb? In none of the gospel narratives is a Passover lamb (animal) mentioned during the Last Supper. Why? No Jewish Passover would have been a REAL Passover unless a REAL Passover lamb was eaten. If no real lamb was eaten, that Thursday night, then the Passover would have been invalid, and in violation of the requirements of Exodus 12: 14, 17, and 24. How do we explain this apparent difficulty?

 

If the Protestant view is correct, then all the apostles ate was a piece of bread, but, as pointed out above, if that was the case, then the Passover celebration was invalid because no real lamb was eaten. Remember – bread is not lamb! Now do you think our lord would have participated in an invalid Passover? NO! So again, how do we solve this dilemma – or what conclusion are we to draw from this?

 

Well, some might say that there was an animal type lamb there, but it just wasn’t recorded. Scripture, however, easily refutes this idea. Let us look at both John the Baptist, and St. Paul. John refers to Christ as “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1: 29). In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 Paul is more specific, and states:

Christ is the Paschal Lamb who has been sacrificed.” Therefore, let us keep the feast…

 

In other words, Jesus is now the new Passover Lamb for all time. He is the lamb that was to be eaten at the last supper, and when he said to the apostles: This is My Body, they received the actual body of Christ - the living, heavenly, resurrected, glorified body of our Lord (not dead, earthly, flesh, in the cannibalistic way the Jews who walked away were thinking).

 

Paul confirms this again in 1 Corinthians 10:16, where he says: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a partaking of the body of Christ?)

 

There is one other point we must stress. Notice again, that Paul tells us that Jesus is our Pascal lamb who has been sacrificed - OK, but then Paul adds an additional requirement to Christ’s sacrifice when he says: “…Therefore, let us keep the feast…” What does this mean? It means that we must eat the lamb. “… let us keep the feast…” is a direct reference back to Christ’s command in John 6: 53-54 -“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have eternal life”.

 

 

So, just as the directions for the original Passover were very specific (they had to eat a real lamb), so too the directions for the New Testament equivalent of the Passover (the Eucharist at Mass) are very specific: we have to eat the Lamp – the real Lamb – Christ.

 

Remember that the Old Testament is basically a prefigurement of the New Testament. Many Old Testament events or situations dealt with physical life and death, and prefigured similar events or situations in the New Testament, which deal with spiritual life and death. So just as the Israelite’s had to eat a real lamb for physical health, so too, we must eat the lamb for spiritual health.

 

For a more in-depth discussion of this topic see Dr. Scott Hahn’s talk: “The 4th Cup”

 

 

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello zeland,

 

Welcome to the forum! If by chance you wish to share a little about yourself, and care to deepen your fellowship with others here in the forum, then please share a little introduction in the "Welcome Mat".

 

To begin our discussion, we should ask two questions just for clarity. Does Christ have the power to change bread and wine into his own body and blood? And secondly, if He does, did He will to do so? I think most people would agree that Christ does have such power. If He created the entire universe out of nothing, He can certainly change bread and wine into His own Body and Blood. So lets concentrate on the second question; was Christ talking literally when he said: “This is My Body”?

 

The actual body of Christ is ascended to heaven. The body of Christ is really present in the sacrament in a spiritual sense by the power of the Holy Spirit. Protestants in general, believe, "this" is a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary and not a sacrifice again, to be done again, again and again. Curious, how do you answer to the charge of idolatry? That is, believing that Catholic priests (when properly administered) have turned God into an idol of bread and wine.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Zeland. We're not re-sacrificing Christ,so we don't need his body all over again. And, Jesus isn't literally a lamb. Likewise, it's incorrect believe that the bread is literally Jesus' body.

 

while still retaining the outward appearance of bread and wine

 

If God is making the body and blood falsely appear as bread and wine, doesn't that make God deceitful?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Zeland,

If you were one present at this supper and Jesus was holding the bread in his hand and said "this is my body " would you think that He was literally speaking of His body? If there was any question or confusion by those present as to what Jesus meant I think they would have asked Him, and Jesus would have clarified what He meant. The disciples had no problem asking a question when they didn't understand what He meant, for example the parables. Since Jesus was holding the bread with His body present, the only conclusion they would have is Jesus meant it symbolically. "Do this in remembrance of Me." Something to consider.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Catholicism (and cults) is that when you're discussing one specific doctrine, it's your argument (Jesus took bread -- bread -- and said this [bread], this baked food that is bread is...) vs. the whole purportedly divinely established Roman Catholic church (and sister rites). People are hard enough to convince of anything, even when they have no investment in something, but when their whole religion is invested in that little detail, how can they possibly budge? You have to refute all of Catholicism for a Catholic to accept that the bread is bread.

 

Protestants don't have this problem. We have no problem disagreeing with our church on specific doctrinal details. And, it's not a huge deal to leave a denomination, if we think it's gotten too far off track. You show us something in scripture, we can accept it. Indeed, our doctrine begins and ends in the Bible. Our churches are guides, not dictators, of doctrine.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well unfortunately man does not have the capacity to convince man of anything. That should obvious. The work of " convincing" belongs to The Holy Spirit. And what's really unfortunate is when a Christian can't "convince" another Christian because he's too proud to admit he's wrong. Instead of saying "Wow I never thought of that" " I'll have to check that out." He just digs his heels in and can't be moved.

The problem with Catholicism (and cults) is that when you're discussing one specific doctrine, it's your argument (Jesus took bread -- bread -- and said this [bread], this baked food that is bread is...) vs. the whole purportedly divinely established Roman Catholic church (and sister rites). People are hard enough to convince of anything, even when they have no investment in something, but when their whole religion is invested in that little detail, how can they possibly budge? You have to refute all of Catholicism for a Catholic to accept that the bread is bread.

 

Protestants don't have this problem. We have no problem disagreeing with our church on specific doctrinal details. And, it's not a huge deal to leave a denomination, if we think it's gotten too far off track. You show us something in scripture, we can accept it. Indeed, our doctrine begins and ends in the Bible. Our churches are guides, not dictators, of doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Zeland,

If you were one present at this supper and Jesus was holding the bread in his hand and said "this is my body " would you think that He was literally speaking of His body? If there was any question or confusion by those present as to what Jesus meant I think they would have asked Him, and Jesus would have clarified what He meant. The disciples had no problem asking a question when they didn't understand what He meant, for example the parables. Since Jesus was holding the bread with His body present, the only conclusion they would have is Jesus meant it symbolically. "Do this in remembrance of Me." Something to consider.

 

I would believe that Jesus was talking literally. Jesus I God, and I would accept everything He says as absolute truth. I might not understand how such a miracle would take place, but I would accept what He said as absolute truth! Wouldn't you?

 

zeland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rightly dividing the word of truth, the true teachings of the Lord are revealed. Taking the Last Supper elements as literal by themselves excludes other parts of Scripture which can clear the matter up, such as God is a Spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and in truth, and He seeks such to worship Him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a followup to Williams statement about the apostles lack of understanding. This was not the case. Jesus explained all things to his disciples (Mark 4: 34)

 

As I said, if it was only bread, then the last supper was invalid, because they had to eat a real lamb. (Ex. 12: 3-9, 14, 17 & 24).

 

Also, if it was only bread, then Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 11: 23-29 makes no sense. Can you explain that? There is nothing in scripture that says Christ was talking symbolically. Some try to use verse 6:63, one verse, to negate the entire bread of life discourse. Verse 63, along with verse 62, refutes the idea of cannibalism which the Jews incorrectly assumed.

 

As a side point, consider this question - can Jesus bi-locate?

 

zeland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a followup to Williams statement about the apostles lack of understanding.

 

Hi Zeland,

 

I have no idea as to what you're quoting.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a side point, consider this question - can Jesus bi-locate?

 

Can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...if it was only bread, then Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 11: 23-29 makes no sense. Can you explain that?

 

Hi Zeland, ok, let's take a look:

1 Corinthians 11

23 I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

Jesus said:

Truly, truly, I say to you,
I am the door of the sheep
... If anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. ~John 10:7,9

 

I understand Jesus' meaning here, and I'm sure you do too. I'm sure you also understand that Jesus did not intend for us to believe that He is a wooden door (with hinges & a gate hook :)).

 

Likewise, I have no problem understanding 1 Corinthians 11:24 as,

"
This bread
represents
My body, which was broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me
".

 

You insist that v24 cannot be understood in such a manner however, that it makes no sense as it was written by St. Paul, so I must be missing something. Please explain what that is (and why). Thanks!

 

There is nothing in scripture that says Christ was talking symbolically. Some try to use verse 6:63, one verse, to negate the entire bread of life discourse.

 

There are many doctrines that are built upon a single verse or two (Genesis 1:27 teaches us that BOTH men and women were made in the image of God, for instance), and there are other's that are created from something as small as a single, qualifying phrase at the end of a verse (Romans 3:10's "not even one" comes to mind).

 

Likewise, where there are a number of additional reasons, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, to hold to a NON-physical presence in the Supper, let's face it, as single verses go, v63 certainly seems to have a lot to say about the passage that comes just before it in that regard. The entire verse, in fact, appears to "qualify" the preceding passage!

John 6

63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

 

BTW, Calvin hardly denied the "Real Presence" of the Lord in the Supper, rather, he taught that it was a "Spiritual" presence, not a physical one, the Lord's body and blood remaining with Him in Heaven.

 

This also makes sense logically and factually, The church maintains that Jesus Christ has been fully man since His Incarnation, and that He remains so, even today in Heaven (He is also fully Divine, of course), and a "man" cannot be in two places (much less two million), at the same time, and still be considered human (because men can't do that) ... which is why the Eucharist doctrine was invented, to solve that little problem .................................................. but did it? ;)

 

Yours in Christ,

David

Edited by David Lee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can you?

 

I expected a more intelligent answer. Would you like to try again?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi Zeland, ok, let's take a look:

 

Jesus said:

Truly, truly, I say to you,
I am the door of the sheep
... If anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. ~John 10:7,9

 

 

I understand Jesus' meaning here, and I'm sure you do too. I'm sure you also understand that Jesus did not intend for us to believe that He is a wooden door (with hinges & a gate hook :)).

 

Likewise, I have no problem understanding 1 Corinthians 11:24 as,

"
This bread
represents
My body, which was broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me
".

 

 

You insist that v24 cannot be understood in such a manner however, that it makes no sense as it was written by St. Paul, so I must be missing something. Please explain what that is (and why). Thanks!

 

 

 

There are many doctrines that are built upon a single verse or two (Genesis 1:27 teaches us that BOTH men and women were made in the image of God, for instance), and there are other's that are created from something as small as a single, qualifying phrase at the end of a verse (Romans 3:10's "not even one" comes to mind).

 

Likewise, where there are a number of additional reasons, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, to hold to a NON-physical presence in the Supper, let's face it, as single verses go, v63 certainly seems to have a lot to say about the passage that comes just before it in that regard. The entire verse, in fact, appears to "qualify" the preceding passage!

 

 

BTW, Calvin hardly denied the "Real Presence" of the Lord in the Supper, rather, he taught that it was a "Spiritual" presence, not a physical one, the Lord's body and blood remaining with Him in Heaven.

 

This also makes sense logically and factually, The church maintains that Jesus Christ has been fully man since His Incarnation, and that He remains so, even today in Heaven (He is also fully Divine, of course), and a "man" cannot be in two places (much less two million), at the same time, and still be considered human (because men can't do that) ... which is why the Eucharist doctrine was invented, to solve that little problem .................................................. but did it? ;)

 

Yours in Christ,

David

 

 

Dear Dave,

 

Thanks for your reply. Your statement: "a "man" cannot be in two places (much less two million), at the same time" is incorrect.

 

God can be in as many places (physically) at one time as he wants. When we receive the Eucharist we receive the living, resurrected, heavenly, glorified body of Christ. Do you deny Christ this power?

 

Many of the great saints had the gift of bi-location. most notably of these was Padre Pio of Italy. Please read the following story which comes to us, not from the Church, but from the US military in 1943. I have provided two links to this story. Just tyoe into a search engine the phrase "Padre Pio in the air". Below I have provided two links.

 

http://www.sanpadrepio.com/Flymonk.htm

 

http://www.ewtn.com/Padrepio/mystic/bilocation.htm

 

There also have been many Eucharistic miracles where the host turned into the actual flesh of Christ. The most recent miracle was in 1996 in Buenos Aires Argentina.

 

See:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXkVlTXTVBs (8 minutes)

 

This video is about a scientific investigation of the 1996 miracle.

 

The second video is about the scientific investigation of a similar miracle that happened in Lanciano Italy. I provide this link, because it is referred to in the first video.

 

 

[h=1][/h]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I expected a more intelligent answer. Would you like to try again?

 

Thanks

I just try to do the best I can with what I've got, Zeland ;)

 

I'll try again by asking my question in a different way. Actually, here's two for the price of one :)

1) Can ANY man "bi-locate"? (this is not a trick question!)

 

2) Jesus Christ is truly/fully God, but we know that He also has a dual nature (and that He maintains that nature even today in Heaven ... your church teaches this and so does mine). As God (who is "Spirit"), He is omnipresent, however, as a man, He cannot be! His physical body occupies a specific location in space/time, just like ours do, or He cannot be said to be "fully man".

 

Men are not omnipresent, nor can we "bi-locate", but the doctrine of Transubstantiation requires Jesus (as a man,
NOT
as God) to do what men cannot. So my 2nd question for you is, "how is this possible"?

 

Yours in Christ,

David

p.s. - there's a fun little philosophical question that atheists love to ask us (I'm sure you've heard it): "Can God create a rock so big that even He can't lift it?". The answer is: God is omnipotent, but even God can't do what cannot be done (e.g. make 2+2=5).

Edited by David Lee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Dave,

 

Thanks for your reply. Your statement: "a "man" cannot be in two places (much less two million), at the same time" is incorrect.

 

God can be in as many places (physically) at one time as he wants. When we receive the Eucharist we receive the living, resurrected, heavenly, glorified body of Christ. Do you deny Christ this power?

 

Please see the answer(s) in my last post above (which includes the point I made in the "p.s.").

 

Many of the great saints had the gift of bi-location. most notably of these was Padre Pio of Italy. Please read the following story which comes to us, not from the Church, but from the US military in 1943. I have provided two links to this story. Just tyoe into a search engine the phrase "Padre Pio in the air". Below I have provided two links.

 

I've read the stories (I remember a similar "bi-location" claim being made about a nun, if memory serves), and I've seen the evidence for these claims, but I remain unconvinced. IOW, respectfully, I don't believe any of it, nor do I believe that it's been proven to anyone's satisfaction (save someone who "wants" it to be true badly enough, of course).

 

Yours in Christ,

David

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of the Creeds that might help the discussion along:

THE SYMBOL OF CHALCEDON

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

 

ATHANASIAN CREED
(see in particular the last paragraph concerning the "Incarnation")

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

 

And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

 

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

 

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

 

Edited by David Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well raise my rent, I thought the Creeds would encourage a little more discussion, but sadly, it appears I was wrong ............................. [ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\ttantrum.gif Views:\t1 Size:\t5.4 KB ID:\t34798","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"34798","data-size":"full","title":"tantrum.gif"}[/ATTACH]

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why this is on a Protestant forum, but since it is here, let it be exposed for the error that it is, by God's grace.

 

“Where was the lamb at the last supper” – the roasted lamb?

 

 

There is probably no more controversial topic between Catholics and Protestants than that of the Holy Eucharist. When Christ, at the last supper, said, “This is My Body – this is My Blood”, was He talking only symbolically or did He really mean that the bread and wine were to be miraculous transformed into His real Flesh and Blood, while still retaining the outward appearance of bread and wine? The Catholic response to this question is, a resounding, YES, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church, from apostolic times till now. Ever since the words of consecration were first spoken at the last supper, the apostles and their successors have believed in Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist.

 

Which is simply a false statement, since first, the actual evidence of record of how the apostles and NT church understood the so-called "words of consecration" spoken at the last supper in the gospels is that of the record and teachings of the NT church, Acts onward, which wholly inspired writing are interpretive of the gospels.

 

In which, from the 28 chapters of Acts to the to 22 chapters Revelation we see absolutely no:

 

1. Separate sacerdotal class of believers distinctively titled "priests" conducting the Lord's supper and offering up the body and blood of Christ as a sacrifice for sins, "a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent)

 

Instead, the Holy Spirit never calls NT pastors by that distinctive name (“hiereus”), which is used for OT and pagan priests, as well as all believers, for all believers are called to sacrifice, (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and the few (possible or manifest) descriptions of the Lord's supper never even show it being conducted by clergy (though this should be expected, the essential Catholic role here is what is disallowed), let alone as essential due to their distinctive sacerdotal function .

 

2. NT pastors being instructed to do so as a primary active duty, "most of all to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice." (Pastoral Reflections on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Cardinal John J. O'Conner)

 

Instead, as is abundantly manifest, the primary active function of NT pastors (presbuteros (senior/elder)/episkopos (superintendent/overseer) is that of preaching the word, (Acts 8:25; 15;35; 1Co. 1:17; 2Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:3) by which they are to feed the flock of God among whom they were overseers. (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2)

 

3. The Lord's supper being described as spiritual food, the medicine of immortality," (CCC 1405) nourished by this divine food (Can. 914) "the irreplaceable food for the journey of the pilgrim church on earth." (USCCP: "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion," paragraphs. 4,14)

 

In contrast, it is by believing the word of God received by hearing that one obtains spiritual life in themselves, (Eph. 1:13; Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9) and which is described as "milk" and "meat," (1 Pt. 2:2; 1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:12,13) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, (Acts 20:32)

 

4. The Lord's supper being manifest as the supreme central sacrament, "the source and summit of the Christian life," (CCC 1324) "the cause of that communion in the divine life," (CCC 1325) and the work of our redemption is carried out;" (CCC 1364)

 

Instead aside from such mere descriptions that the disciples, breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46) and reference to the believers-only "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12, there is no manifest mention of the Lord's supper in all of Romans, nor from Galatians all the way thru Revelation, despite the many problems and or commendations therein. Its only manifestly described in 1Co. 10+11, in which the priestly Catholic Eucharist is not what is described, versus a Protestant service (though such itself typically falls short), with communion with Christ being analogous to how pagans have fellowship with demons by taking part in their dedicatory feasts, (1Co. 10:14-22) and in which the church is "one bread" and the focus, being not discerned as the body of Christ, since they were selfishly eating independently, to the shame of them that have not. (1Co. 11:17-34)

 

Thus, as with other Catholic distinctives, the Catholic Eucharist is simply not seen in the life of the NT church.

 

This post is the first of three parts which are based on a letter I wrote to a Protestant friend in response to a previous conversation we had about what our Lord meant, at the last supper. So I thought I would share some of the ideas we discussed, with this forum. The discussion with my friend gave rise to the following question – “Where was the lamb at the last supper” – the roasted lamb? The answer to this question will lead us to the first of three scriptural proofs, which show that Christ was talking literally.

 

Let's dispense with the premise that you are here to "share some of the ideas" you discussed. You are reiterating a typical RC anti-Protestant polemic and which will be treated as such.

 

To begin our discussion, we should ask two questions just for clarity. Does Christ have the power to change bread and wine into his own body and blood? And secondly, if He does, did He will to do so? I think most people would agree that Christ does have such power. If He created the entire universe out of nothing, He can certainly change bread and wine into His own Body and Blood. So lets concentrate on the second question; was Christ talking literally when he said: “This is My Body”?

 

What God can do simply does not warrant the conclusion that God would and did so something, and thus this is a fallacious. What God/Christ did do is manifest in Scripture, and which does not teach the Catholic metaphysical Christ being consumed in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life.

 

At the Last Supper, Christ was celebrating the Passover with his apostles. Now before going any further, we should refresh our memories concerning the requirements of the original Jewish Passover meal, the night before the Exodus. The people had to procure and eat a REAL lamb (for nourishment for the journey out of Egypt) - Exodus 12:8 (the Paschal lamb had to be eaten). Suppose a family didn’t like lamb, and decided to bake a cake in the shape of a lamb and symbolically eat that. What would have happened? The next morning, their first-born would be dead. The instructions for that first Passover were very specific: they had to eat a REAL lamb. Also, the Jews were commanded (three times) to do this, each year, as a perpetual remembrance of that event (Exodus 12: 14, 17, & 24).

 

Consider now the question I mentioned at the beginning of this post: “Where was the lamb at the last supper” – the roasted lamb? In none of the gospel narratives is a Passover lamb (animal) mentioned during the Last Supper. Why? No Jewish Passover would have been a REAL Passover unless a REAL Passover lamb was eaten. If no real lamb was eaten, that Thursday night, then the Passover would have been invalid, and in violation of the requirements of Exodus 12: 14, 17, and 24. How do we explain this apparent difficulty?

 

“No Jewish Passover would have been a REAL Passover unless a REAL Passover lamb was eaten.”

 

You mean a a “REAL Passover lamb” that REALLY looked, smelled, tasted and would scientifically test as REAL bread and wine ("If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh" (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation"), but which REALLY no longer exist and instead - despite appearances and all known evidences of physicality - what is consumed “REALLY” is corporeal flesh - even in and to the smallest molecule - until such non-existent bread and wine begins to decay (which, at the molecular level, likely commences almost immediately), at which point the “REAL” Passover lamb REALLY no longer exists? (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) "The Eucharistic presence of Christ ["with His bodily organs and limbs and with His human mind, will and feelings." (John A. Hardon, S.J., Part I: Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence)] begins at the moment of the consecration and endures...until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 32) Or at least what does not exist "appears" to decay. (At which point Aquinas argued that the substance of the bread and wine cannot return, despite appearance: Summa Theologiae, Question 77)

 

This metaphysical contrivance is (by correspondence) the “REAL Passover lamb” Jews would eat? And yet the flesh that the Lord said would be broken, and the blood that He said would be shed was that of the manifestly incarnated body, “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life,” (1 John 1:1) and not some Gnostic-type Christ that is not really what He looks like (incarnated).

 

While within Gnosticism you had the belief that what Christ looked and behaved like, as manifestly being incarnated with a tangible real body of flesh and blood, was not real (Christ being a sort of phantom but looking human), in Catholicism you have the belief that (in transubstantiation) what Christ looks, feels, tastes and would test as (bread and wine), is not the reality (Christ's corporeal body and blood only looking like bread and wine). And conversely, that the bread and wine is no longer real but only looks, feels, tastes, etc. like the real thing.

 

Therefore a plain literal reading of the words at issue require us to believe that the flesh and blood the apostles consumed was manifest actual bloody flesh and bloody wine, not something that did not look like what it really was.

 

Under the premise that Eucharistic theology provides the literal understanding of the words at issue, what we have instead is a novel metaphysical understanding of Neoplatonic thought.

 

From a scholarly RC monk and defender:

 

Neoplatonic thought or at least conceptual terms are clearly interwoven with Christian theology long before the 13th century...

 

The doctrine of transubstantiation completely reverses the usual distinction between being and appearance, where being is held to be unchanging and appearance is constantly changing. Transubstantiation maintains instead that being or substance changes while appearance remains unchanged. Such reversals in the order of things are affronts to reason and require much, not little, to affirm philosophically. Moreover, transubstantiation seem to go far beyond the simple distinction between appearance and reality. It would be one thing if the body and blood of Christ simply appeared to be bread and wine. But I don’t think that is what is claimed with “transubstantiation.”

 

Aristotle picked up just such common-sense concepts as “what-it-is-to-be-X” and tried to explain rather complex philosophical problems with them. Thus, to take a “common-sense” concept like substance–even if one could maintain that it were somehow purified of Aristotelian provenance—and have it do paradoxical conceptual gymnastics in order to explain transubstantiation seems not to be not so anti-Aristotelian in spirit after all...

 

That the bread and wine are somehow really the body and blood of Christ is an ancient Christian belief—but using the concept of “substance” to talk about this necessarily involves Greek philosophy (Br. Dennis Beach, OSB, monk of St. John’s Abbey; doctorate in philosophy from Penn State; http://www.praytellblog.com/index.ph...avy-philosophy)

 

The mere use of aspects of pagan thought is not necessarily wrong, but the novel manner of it and of having to resort to reading this into the text under the premise of a plain language hermeneutic is the problem. In contrast to the metaphysical Catholic contrivance, the metaphorical understanding alone easily conflates with Scripture, which often uses such language, which the kosher apostles were familiar with.

 

If the Protestant view is correct, then all the apostles ate was a piece of bread, but, as pointed out above, if that was the case, then the Passover celebration was invalid because no real lamb was eaten. Remember – bread is not lamb! Now do you think our lord would have participated in an invalid Passover? NO! So again, how do we solve this dilemma – or what conclusion are we to draw from this?

 

Indeed, something that looked, smelled, tasted and would scientifically test as REAL bread and wine, yet which itself REALLY no longer exists is not the Lamb of God. Nonetheless, consistent with the inconsistent Catholic premise that there must be a corresponding literal fulfillment, not simply in the spiritual sense, then since Jews looked to a actual burning light in the temple, and shepherds had an actual gate by which the sheep entered in, then the light and doors in Catholic churches must really be Christ, under the appearance of the physical.

 

Well, some might say that there was an animal type lamb there, but it just wasn’t recorded. Scripture, however, easily refutes this idea. Let us look at both John the Baptist, and St. Paul. John refers to Christ as “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1: 29). In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 Paul is more specific, and states: “Christ is the Paschal Lamb who has been sacrificed.” Therefore, let us keep the feast…

 

In other words, Jesus is now the new Passover Lamb for all time. He is the lamb that was to be eaten at the last supper, and when he said to the apostles: This is My Body, they received the actual body of Christ - the living, heavenly, resurrected, glorified body of our Lord (not dead, earthly, flesh, in the cannibalistic way the Jews who walked away were thinking).

 

Actually, no less a RC authority than Cardinal Ratzinger denies that the last supper was actually a OT Passover meal, "the meal that Jesus shared with the Twelve was not a Passover meal according to the ritual prescriptions of Judaism" since when this time had come Jesus had already died (citing John's gospel), thus "this farewell meal was not the old Passover, but the new one..." and citing “Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be new dough, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed,” the older ritual understanding is transformed into a Christological and existential interpretation. Unleavened bread must now refer to Christians themselves, who are freed from sin by the addition of yeast. But the sacrificial lamb is Christ." (http://www.catholiclane.com/dating-t...seph-ratzinger)

 

In any case, while Christ is indeed "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," thanks be to God, and 1Co. 5 is likely referring to the Lord's supper, it remains that the metaphysical lamb of Catholic Eucharistic theology is not the literal Lamb of God manifestly incarnated in the flesh, who manifestly came "by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood." (1 John 5:6) but one that that appears and would test as an inanimate object, which is nowhere seen (God was not transubstantiated as a burning bush, nor is this the incarnation theologically the same) while the metaphorical understanding is well supported in Scripture.

 

A few examples from Scripture pertinent to this aspect are:

 

• And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

 

Here David plainly calls drinkable water human "blood" and pours it out on the ground, like as the blood of animals is poured out as an offering to the Lord. And like as with the words at issue ("take eat, this is my body.."), unless they are understood in the light of other uses of language then a literal reading can be assumed. To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Catholics insist certain words requires in the gospels, then they should also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread:

 

• Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

 

Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,

 

• The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

 

• David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

 

• And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4

 

In the end, 1Co. 5:7-8 supports Protestant understanding just fine.

 

Paul confirms this again in 1 Corinthians 10:16, where he says: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a partaking of the body of Christ?)

 

In 1 Corinthians 10 the communion/fellowship of the blood and the body of Christ being described is through their communal sharing in that meal done in remembrance of Christ's death, not by eating His flesh. For in context the apostle teaches that this fellowship is analogous to the fellowship pagans have with their gods in their commemorative feasts, participation by believers in which the apostle is condemning.

 

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20,21)

 

Which partaking was not by consuming the transubstantiated flesh of devils, but by taking part in a feast done in dedication to demons. For they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar, showing union with the object of this feast and each other, and not because the food has been transubstantiated into that of the entity it is offered to.

 

There is one other point we must stress. Notice again, that Paul tells us that Jesus is our Pascal lamb who has been sacrificed - OK, but then Paul adds an additional requirement to Christ’s sacrifice when he says: “…Therefore, let us keep the feast…” What does this mean? It means that we must eat the lamb. “… let us keep the feast…” is a direct reference back to Christ’s command in John 6: 53-54 -“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have eternal life”. So, just as the directions for the original Passover were very specific (they had to eat a real lamb), so too the directions for the New Testament equivalent of the Passover (the Eucharist at Mass) are very specific: we have to eat the Lamp – the real Lamb – Christ.

 

The John 6:53-54 quote is mangled, and the argument is a fail on more than one account:

 

First, your argument by assertion that let us keep the feast… is a direct reference back to Christ’s command in John 6: 53-54 is simply begging the question, presuming what need to be proved. And while Catholics love to quote John 6: 53-54 "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. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:53-54), besides the aforementioned metaphysical spin they must read into "the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," (John 6:51) the fatal problems are,

 

1. Nowhere are souls shown obtaining spiritual life in them by partaking of the Lord's supper, and instead as shown, it is by believing the word of God they heard which is said to be spiritual "milk" and "meat" by which souls are nourished and built up. And by effectual faith in which one is said to presently possess eternal life. (1Jn. 5:13)

 

2. This statement is as absolute a requirements of other "verily verily" ones, which means at the least that no one who can but does not believe in transubstantiation has spiritual life in the them and can have eternal life. Which is clearly contrary to both Scripture and even modern RC teaching, which affirms baptized Prots as have the Spirit who works among them. (Lumen Gentium 16)

 

Remember that the Old Testament is basically a prefigurement of the New Testament. Many Old Testament events or situations dealt with physical life and death, and prefigured similar events or situations in the New Testament, which deal with spiritual life and death. So just as the Israelite’s had to eat a real lamb for physical health, so too, we must eat the lamb for spiritual health.

 

The Holy Spirit reveals the fulfillment of many prefigurements, but which does not mean they must have a literal anti-type, or fulfillment, while the Spirit nowhere shows the NT church teaching that one must partake of the Euchatist in order to obtain spiritual life, in contrast to believing the gospel of salvation and then living by the word of God.

 

Things that are shown to have spiritual fulfillment include the everlasting covenant of circumcision (Gn.17:14; Ex.4:24-26; 12:48; (Gal.5:6; 6:15); Heave offering eaten by a statute forever (Ex.29:28; Lv.10:15; Num.18:8,11,18); the light burning in Tabernacle, a statute forever (Ex.27:20,21; Lv.24:3); Incense to be burned in Tab. perpetually throughout all generations (Ex.30:8); the nakedness of priests to be covered by a statute forever (Ex. 28:43); Fire ever to be burning on the altar, to never go out (Lv.6:13); Ceremonial washing by a statute forever (Ex.30:21).

 

For a more in-depth discussion of this topic see Dr. Scott Hahn’s talk: “The 4th Cup”

 

Another propagandist, and such is not a "discussion."

 

For a more in-depth examination on this topic see The Lord's Supper: metaphorical commemoration or the consumption of the "real" metaphysical body and blood of the Lord Jesus?

 

 

Edited by Daniel1212
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Please see the answer(s) in my last post above (which includes the point I made in the "p.s.").

 

I've read the stories (I remember a similar "bi-location" claim being made about a nun, if memory serves), and I've seen the evidence for these claims, but I remain unconvinced. IOW, respectfully, I don't believe any of it, nor do I believe that it's been proven to anyone's satisfaction (save someone who "wants" it to be true badly enough, of course).

 

Yours in Christ,

David

The larger issue is the manner of body one has in "bi-location," even if such occurs. Do these somehow "separated brethren" biolocate as an inanimate non-human material object which, based on known evidences of physicality, only evidence that they are inanimate non-human material objects, but which actually do not exist, since the the "real" body of the "saint" has taken their place, for which there is no evidence of such as manifested the Christ was incarnated, in contrast to Gnostic-type phantoms?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would believe that Jesus was talking literally. Jesus I God, and I would accept everything He says as absolute truth. I might not understand how such a miracle would take place, but I would accept what He said as absolute truth! Wouldn't you?

zeland

Then, consistent with your face-value isolation hermeneutic, you would also believe that the temple which He said He would destroy was the literal temple of stone in view, since nowhere did the Lord correct that misapprehension to the hearers. Likewise you would have thought that the leaven which the Pharisees used was to be avoided, since the Lord said to beware of it, and did not explain it as metaphorical. And you might even believe that believers would be gushing literal water since the Lord plainly said that He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (John 7:38)

 

Likewise, when David plainly called water the blood of men, and treated it as such, refusing to drink it but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, (2 Samuel 23:16-17) then you would have to take it literally.

 

Meanwhile, as expressed before (see my last post), if Catholic you can hardly claim to be taking the words of the Lord (take eat, this is my body..") literally at face value. For the body that was broken and the blood that was shed was that of the manifestly incarnated Christ, God manifest (with known evidences of physicality) in the flesh, and not that which (based on evidences of physicality) was an inanimate object, yet which is said to actually not exist. Do you think the carnal Jews who went away at the Lord's words in Jn. 6 objected to that?

 

To be face-value literal consistent, you must assume that at the Last Supper the apostles consumed looked, smelled, felt and tasted like the body and blood that He said it was, which was to be broken and shed, respectively. If (aside from claims miracles which are not what Eucharistic theology describes) Catholic priests could produce this then there would be no metaphysical Catholic contrivance of communion.

 

We take it for granted that we contextually, including in the light of our culture, understand literal versus figurative language in everyday speech (esp. in sports), and in the light of the abundant use of metaphorical language in Scripture, versus the novelty of the metaphysical Catholic christ, then it is only the metaphorical understanding that easily conflates with the rest of Scripture.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a followup to Williams statement about the apostles lack of understanding. This was not the case. Jesus explained all things to his disciples (Mark 4: 34)

 

Which is simply out of context, which is as regards parables, and Mark 4: 34 even says that without a parable spake he not unto them. Thus some cults likewise abuse this text, teaching that the warnings about Hell-fire were only symbolic. Moreover, there is not word in the Greek of "all" as in "when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples," and considering their mistaken ideas about no less than His death and resurrection, it is clear that the disciples did not understand all things that the Lord taught.

 

Therefore, per usual, faced with the typically protesting kosher Peter and other questioners consuming human flesh and blood, Catholics must read into Scripture what they can only wish was there.

 

As I said, if it was only bread, then the last supper was invalid, because they had to eat a real lamb. (Ex. 12: 3-9, 14, 17 & 24).

 

And as said, a real lamb, as with the Real Christ versus that of the Eucharist, looked, felt, smelled and would test (by known evidences of physicality) to be real flesh, versus inanimate objects which only would look, etc. and test to be as such, yet which in Eucharistic theology are said to no longer exist, and nor does the “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) exist once the non-existent bread and wine begin to decay. No wonder preists lean heavily on psychology.

 

Also, if it was only bread, then Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 11: 23-29 makes no sense. Can you explain that?

 

Not a problem once you understand it in context, contrary to how Catholics abuse it. The only censure for not recognizing the body of Christ is that of not recognizing the church as such, due to hypocritically ignoring and shaming members of it by selfishly and independently eating, while supposedly showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish death which purchased the very body, the church, (Acts 20:28) and the souls they were ignoring.

 

The teaching basically begins with 1 Corinthians 11:17: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse, "censuring the Corinthians for coming together for the worse, since there were in division, and thus the unity in caring for each other is the context which flows into the next chapter. (1 Corinthians 12) Thus what follows is that When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. (1 Corinthians 11:20-21) Rather than acting as a body should in caring for each others, as 1 Corinthians 12:25 says "That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another," (1 Corinthians 12:25) while supposedly coming together to eat the Lord's supper in remembrance of His death y which He purchased the church, (Acts 20:28) "in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not." (1 Corinthians 11:21-22)

 

Some were gluttonous and others were had nothing to eat, to their shame. And thus Paul, in reminding them of what they were supposed to be doing (not what they were doing), simply reiterates a form of the words the Lord's words at the institution of the Lord's supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25) which Catholics imagine somehow teach transubstantiation. Yet Paul says nothing about the nature of the elements, such as "as often as ye eat this body," but he adds, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (1 Corinthians 11:26)

 

This is significant, for besides only referring to what is eaten as "bread," then in keeping with his theme, the apostle states "ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." The Greek word for "show" means "proclaim," "declare," and which the Corinthians were supposed to be doing by sharing a communal "feast of charity," (Jude 1:12) remembering=showing the love for each other that Christ did in purchasing them with His sinless shed blood, but which they were hypocritically doing, thus their coming together was actually "not to eat the Lord's supper." (v. 20)

 

And which further reveals the meaning of the next three verses, which Catholics wrest from their context: "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. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." (1 Corinthians 11:27-30)

 

Catholics imagine that this damnable "not discerning the Lord's body" refers to the Corinthians failing to recognize the nature of the elements as being the Lord's body and blood, yet the eating and drinking unworthily is only contextually shown to be the failure to recognize the church and thus themselves as being the body of Christ by selfishly eating while treating some others as of they were to be shunned.

 

That their inequity was not a failure of theologically belief in the nature of the elements, but of their hypocritical manner of eating the Lord's supper, is further confirmed by the remedy, "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come." (1 Corinthians 11:33-34) Which is consistent with what has been shown to the problem, which was not effectually recognizing the nature of the body of Christ by failing to show/declare the Lord's death in communally sharing the feast of charity, together as one body. Even the notes to the Catholic New American Bible get this part correct (apart from "repeating His sacrifice):

 

The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (⇒ 1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus' death (⇒ 1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit.

 

Some might argue that failing to believe in the "Real Presence" was the reason why they treated other members contrary to love Christ showed by His death for them, yet in reality it is the focus upon consuming the wafer and the cup in Catholicism that fosters this lack of corporate care. Protestants who do not associate the death of Christ for the church, and the very sharing of a communion meal (which i am sure is supposed to be more than a wafer and a bit of wine), with actually showing the love of Christ to each member for whom Christ died, do not come far behind (I am guilty also).

 

There is nothing in scripture that says Christ was talking symbolically.

 

To the contrary, there is plenty in scripture that says Christ was talking metaphorically, and there is nothing in scripture that says Christ was talking literally in having souls consume actual human blood, or as metaphysically as a christ with a body that looks and tests as simply an inanimate object, which does not even exist, but decays, resulting in this Christ no longer existing under that appearance.

 

Some try to use verse 6:63, one verse, to negate the entire bread of life discourse. Verse 63, along with verse 62, refutes the idea of cannibalism which the Jews incorrectly assumed.

 

Actually, it does not teach the metaphysical Christ, while the only interpretation of John 6:47-69 that conflates with the rest of Scripture is the one in which souls obtain live by receiving the living word of the gospel message, and then, as the Lord said, "as the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me," (John 6:57) and Christ did not live by the Father by eating His flesh, but by living according to His every word, (Mt. 4:4) and with the doing of it being His "meat," (Jn. 4:34) then believers live by His word, which is said to be milk, meat, nourishment which builds one up, as shown.

 

For as John often shows, the physical/earthly itself does not profit one spiritually, and Christ would soon be gone physically (and nothing is said about the Lord's supper in Jn. 6) while the word of God endureth forever, and which is spirit and life. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)

 

As a side point, consider this question - can Jesus bi-locate?

Again, what God can do is simply a fallacious basis for arguing that He did. God could have had Jonah swallow the fish. And the nature of the purported bilocated Catholic christ is contrary to the manifestly incarnated Christ of the NT and the His body He referred to at the last supper.

Edited by Daniel1212
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just try to do the best I can with what I've got, Zeland ;)

 

I'll try again by asking my question in a different way. Actually, here's two for the price of one :)

1) Can ANY man "bi-locate"? (this is not a trick question!)

 

2) Jesus Christ is truly/fully God, but we know that He also has a dual nature (and that He maintains that nature even today in Heaven ... your church teaches this and so does mine). As God (who is "Spirit"), He is omnipresent, however, as a man, He cannot be! His physical body occupies a specific location in space/time, just like ours do, or He cannot be said to be "fully man".

 

Men are not omnipresent, nor can we "bi-locate", but the doctrine of Transubstantiation requires Jesus (as a man,
NOT
as God) to do what men cannot. So my 2nd question for you is, "how is this possible"?

 

 

Yours in Christ,

David

p.s. - there's a fun little philosophical question that atheists love to ask us (I'm sure you've heard it): "Can God create a rock so big that even He can't lift it?". The answer is: God in omnipotent, but even God can't do what cannot be done (e.g. make 2+2=5).

 

Loved your point about the argument, "Can God create a rock so big that even He can't lift?". Another so called argument is whether God can make a square circle?

 

No need to answer beyond your point.

 

God bless,

William

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Catholicism (and cults) is that when you're discussing one specific doctrine, it's your argument (Jesus took bread -- bread -- and said this [bread], this baked food that is bread is...) vs. the whole purportedly divinely established Roman Catholic church (and sister rites). People are hard enough to convince of anything, even when they have no investment in something, but when their whole religion is invested in that little detail, how can they possibly budge? You have to refute all of Catholicism for a Catholic to accept that the bread is bread.

 

True. While it is abundantly manifest that Catholics can hold many different variant beliefs among themselves, including saying that Francis is Communist, etc., it is my observation that believing in the so-called "Real Presence" (originally an Anglican term according to one RC researcher) and the unscriptural thinking of the Catholic Mary far "above that which is written" (1Co. 4:6) are the two most critical Catholic distinctives, which even may protect a heterodox RC from being excommunicated by his/her "true" Catholic brethren (which typically think Francis is Communist, etc.).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Daniel1212, I haven't had a chance to reply to you yet, but I did want to say, WELCOME TO CF :)

 

Yours and His,

David

p.s. - hope to be back shortly (Dv)

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×