|
Post by Cohdra on Dec 3, 2003 13:28:14 GMT -5
On choice 1, I wanted to say "it is a req" as well, but ran out of room
This topic is very important to me, and It's a topic that greatly divides many Christians. Please give your opinion. I believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, and that it is a Christian requirement to take communion; How often would be another debate. Some would say only once in your lifetime, and some would say as often as possible
God bless
|
|
|
Post by pippin on Dec 3, 2003 13:33:54 GMT -5
When one or more are gathered in His name he is present. This is belief I hold true. When receiving coummunion we do it in His memory and He is with us always.
In His Love ysic
pippin
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Dec 3, 2003 14:04:25 GMT -5
On choice 1, I wanted to say "it is a req" as well, but ran out of room This topic is very important to me, and It's a topic that greatly divides many Christians. Please give your opinion. I believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, and that it is a Christian requirement to take communion; How often would be another debate. Some would say only once in your lifetime, and some would say as often as possible God bless cohdra, I believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, since he told us that he was in scripture. As far as the frequency we should receive him, that is a personal one. I recieve such grace from receiving the Eucharist that I am driven to receive Jesus as much as possible. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Dec 3, 2003 16:45:44 GMT -5
I believe the eucharist is to be done in the memory of jesus-not that Jesus is found in the bread.
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Dec 3, 2003 17:16:47 GMT -5
I said "other," because I wasn't sure what you meant by "requirement for Christians." Is it a requirement to be saved? No. Is it a commandment we should observe because we are saved? Yes.
As far as Christ actually being in the eucharist, I think the answer to that is found in John 6:63. Let's go back and get proper perspective. The Lord had just told His disciples that:
"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 blook, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:53-54)
This confused the disciples and they began murmuring amongst themselves (John 6:60-61).
Then The Lord explained clearly in John 6:63 that the Words He had just spoken were spiritual words, and to be applied in a spiritual manner.
When a person accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, He comes into their lives and resides in them through The Holy Spirit. This is what Jesus meant when He said we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood. This is a metaphorical statement meaning that we must have Jesus Christ inside us by receiving His death, burial and resurrection as the propitiation for our sins. When doing this, indeed, we eat His flesh and drink His blood, for He comes to live inside us through The Holy Spirit.
He made this crystal clear in John 6:63. Let's look at His statement:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
Jesus made this statement to the disciples who were having difficulty understanding the hard spiritual concepts He had just given them.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 3, 2003 22:26:21 GMT -5
I think SonWorshiper hit the nail on the head.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Dec 4, 2003 7:15:12 GMT -5
cohdra, I believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, since he told us that he was in scripture. As far as the frequency we should receive him, that is a personal one. I recieve such grace from receiving the Eucharist that I am driven to receive Jesus as much as possible. Blessings, Ann Jesus never said any such thing, as you seem to be saying.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Dec 4, 2003 10:35:36 GMT -5
Again, from my church's Q & A:
There is no scriptural reference which will ever satisfy our human minds regarding the fact that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper we eat bread and drink wine and through that receive the body and blood of our Lord. Again, it all depends on the Word and promise of our Lord who said when He gave the bread and wine, "This IS my body," and "This IS my blood." In his writings, Dr. Luther stressed the word "IS" in his discussions with Ulrich Zwingli who insisted that the words of Jesus were not to be taken literally but symbolically. Please note that the words are not, "My body is like this," that is, that my body is like bread which nourishes. Rather, it is, "This (bread) is my body." If it were merely a symbol one would have to ask, "In what way is bread like Christ's body?"
It should also be noted that in 1 Cor. 10:16 and 11:17-29, St. Paul touches on the matter of the Lord's Supper. In these verses he describes the cup which we drink and the bread which we eat in the Lord's Supper as a participation in the blood and body of Christ. He goes even further and points out that if one eats and drinks the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner he is guilty not only of eating and drinking bread and wine in such a way but is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
In view of these pkmtyolpages as well as the words of Jesus when He instituted the sacrament, we have concluded that while we eat bread and drink wine in the sacrament we--in, with, and under these forms--receive the body and blood of our Lord. How? That is the mystery.
Long story short, if you don't want to take Jesus's words at face value you won't find much to sway you. But then you have to ask yourself why Paul would say what he said in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11.
On the other hand, if you don't take Jesus's words at face value in Matthew 26 et al., why should you take His words at face value in John 14:6 or Matthew 18:20, or Mark 9:31, or Luke 5:20?
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Dec 4, 2003 11:43:39 GMT -5
Again, from my church's Q & A: There is no scriptural reference which will ever satisfy our human minds regarding the fact that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper we eat bread and drink wine and through that receive the body and blood of our Lord.
This is exactly why we must search for more than one verse on a subject. Look up everytime this subject is mentioned or spoken of and see what the consenses is. You will find never anyone calling it the real literal body and blood of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Dec 4, 2003 11:49:43 GMT -5
Jesus never said any such thing, as you seem to be saying. [/color][/quote] gene, "this IS my body, this IS my blood" I know you do not agree with it, but he did say it. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Dec 4, 2003 11:50:59 GMT -5
Again, from my church's Q & A: There is no scriptural reference which will ever satisfy our human minds regarding the fact that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper we eat bread and drink wine and through that receive the body and blood of our Lord. Again, it all depends on the Word and promise of our Lord who said when He gave the bread and wine, "This IS my body," and "This IS my blood." In his writings, Dr. Luther stressed the word "IS" in his discussions with Ulrich Zwingli who insisted that the words of Jesus were not to be taken literally but symbolically. Please note that the words are not, "My body is like this," that is, that my body is like bread which nourishes. Rather, it is, "This (bread) is my body." If it were merely a symbol one would have to ask, "In what way is bread like Christ's body?"
It should also be noted that in 1 Cor. 10:16 and 11:17-29, St. Paul touches on the matter of the Lord's Supper. In these verses he describes the cup which we drink and the bread which we eat in the Lord's Supper as a participation in the blood and body of Christ. He goes even further and points out that if one eats and drinks the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner he is guilty not only of eating and drinking bread and wine in such a way but is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
In view of these pkmtyolpages as well as the words of Jesus when He instituted the sacrament, we have concluded that while we eat bread and drink wine in the sacrament we--in, with, and under these forms--receive the body and blood of our Lord. How? That is the mystery.Long story short, if you don't want to take Jesus's words at face value you won't find much to sway you. But then you have to ask yourself why Paul would say what he said in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. On the other hand, if you don't take Jesus's words at face value in Matthew 26 et al., why should you take His words at face value in John 14:6 or Matthew 18:20, or Mark 9:31, or Luke 5:20? LauraJean, Very Very well said!!! Bless you Ann
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Dec 4, 2003 11:54:34 GMT -5
Again, from my church's Q & A: There is no scriptural reference which will ever satisfy our human minds regarding the fact that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper we eat bread and drink wine and through that receive the body and blood of our Lord.
This is exactly why we must search for more than one verse on a subject. Look up everytime this subject is mentioned or spoken of and see what the consenses is. You will find never anyone calling it the real literal body and blood of Jesus.Really? I don't find it necessary to cross-examine my Lord and Saviour. I trust what he says to be true. If He says the bread and wine are His body and blood, then I trust that opinion. God bless
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Dec 4, 2003 12:33:35 GMT -5
You will find never anyone calling it the real literal body and blood of Jesus. Yeah, that's right. Oh, wait, hold on a second. Doesn't Jesus count? John 6:55 "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." And given that you're so law based, Paul has some words for you too: 1CO 11:29 "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Dec 4, 2003 13:55:14 GMT -5
LauraJean and others,
We cannot take Scripture out of context to support our views. Yes, in John 6:55 The Lord said, "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."
But, He explained in verse 63 that His words were spiritual, and thus, should be applied in a spiritual manner.
Now, let's take a look at Matthew 26:26-28. If you take this pkmtyolpage by itself, it would seem to support your beliefs. But, if you read verse 29, The Lord clearly said what they were drinking was "this fruit of the vine." He didn't refer to it as His literal blood. He called it "the fruit of the vine."
Obviously, The Lord was speaking symbolically when He made His statements in Matthew 26:26-28.
One reason to believe He was speaking symbolically is the obvious...The Lord's Body had not been broken yet, nor His blood been shed. His Body and Blood were right in front of them.
A second reason to believe He was speaking symbolically is because it wasn't unusual for The Lord to do so. Take Peter, for example. Catholics believe he was the first pope, yet, The Lord called him "satan" in Matt. 16:23. Did He literally believe Peter was satan. Of course not. He called him satan in a symbolical manner because Peter's thinking was actually in alignment with satan.
This is just one of many examples The Lord spoke symbolically to get His message across. And if you take all Scripture into account, and not just pull a pkmtyolpage out of context, it's always crystal clear when He was speaking symbolically and when He was speaking literally.
In the case of The Lord's Supper, it's quite evident that He was speaking symbolically, for the reasons I have cited and for the fact that we are forbidden to drink blood many times throughout in The Bible. The Lord would never instruct someone to disobey God's Word. To believe He was speaking literally, would mean you would have to believe Jesus instructed His followers to disobey The Law. And we both know that He would never do such a thing. That would be third reason we should take Matthew 26:26-28 symbolically.
God bless!
Sincerely, SonWorshiper
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Dec 4, 2003 14:30:43 GMT -5
LauraJean and others, We cannot take Scripture out of context to support our views. Yes, in John 6:55 The Lord said, "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." But, He explained in verse 63 that His words were spiritual, and thus, should be applied in a spiritual manner. When Jesus says, in v.63 "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life" he is describing how the Spirit is at work producing life. It is by eating the real food and drinking real drink in which Jesus is present. When some of the disciples turned away because of the difficulty of the teaching, did Jesus stop them and say, "Guys, guys! You misunderstand! I was only speaking symbolically!"? NO. He did not waver from His teaching. And since you bring up not taking things out of context, let's examine the entire pkmtyolpage in John 6. Jesus says repeatedly that He IS the bread, that we must eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, that the bread is real food (not symbolic). I don't see how He could have been more clear. If I cut into you, will I see that which makes you "YOU?" No. I'll see muscle, organs, blood, etc. But within your body your essence or your "presence" is contained. The bread and wine are the same. You cannot separate that which is Jesus's body and blood --His Real Presence-- from the bread and wine, yet both are present. You cannot separate the essence from the substance. I don't see how that negates what He said immediately before, that the cup (e.g., the wine in the cup) was His blood. From my church's site: The prohibition of ingesting blood found in the Old Testament (Deut. 12:16, 23-25) is not part of the moral law which can never be abolished. But it is part of the ceremonial law that has been abrogated at the coming of the Christ. For example, when Jesus healed on the Sabbath and when He allowed His disciples to work unlawfully on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-13), Jesus said that He was Lord of the Sabbath, etc. Thus the prohibition of eating of blood of the Old Testament no longer is in force for the New Testament Christian.
Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, taught the same thing. Read the entire chapter of Romans 14, particularly verse 14: "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself." Also read Col. 2:16-17. Again, the forbidding of eating blood is not a law that leads or binds New Testament Christians.
The Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), in consideration of the strong feelings of the new Jewish believers who had detested the eating of blood most of their lives, requested the Gentile believers to abstain out of love and not offend the still tender feelings the Jewish believers had. It would be better for them not to eat blood than to offend the Jewish believers. The considerate course to follow was to avoid eating blood. But that provision was only temporary. It was not meant to govern the actions of New Testament Christians for all time, as we see from Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16-17.
It should not bother us that Christ commanded us to eat His body and blood, but we should gladly obey and be close to Jesus in that way and to receive His forgiveness and strength. His command to "do this" clears us from any accusation of cannibalism. Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice once and for all with His death, and thus cannot ever be sacrificed again.
"For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him (Jesus), and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross." (Col. 1:26) That's the power of His blood.God's blessings to you too! LJ
|
|