Christians: The doctrines of the Eucharist

[obi one]

You seem to miss the point that the bread of the Passover happened before the advent of either the Law or the prophets. the bread of the Passover was unleavened, because leavening bread takes a lengthy process -- time which the refugees didn't have.
Your exegesis is cute, but mistaken.

You need to heed the testimony of Yeshua, who said, "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees".(Mt 16:6) And the "Word" is the alpha and the omega. It is the beginning and the end. There is no "Passover before the Law and the prophets" for the "Word". The "Word" is from the beginning.

As for you not understanding the concept of using unleavened bread with respect to the last supper, that is as written, and according to Scripture.
Is 8:9-10, " Than I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me."
And He said, "Go, and tell this people;
'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.'

The consequences of this can be seen in Rev 18:4

 

[jtartar]

Hey Christian bros, I didn't want the Doctrines of Mary thread to get off track talking about the Eucharist. Let's talk about the orthodox Protestant translation verses the Catholic .Regarding the "this is my body verse." You have one verse which could easily be Jesus using the bread to symbolically represent himself. It could be very much like when you show someone a photo of your mother and say "this is my mother." It doesn't mean you're related to a picture or that a picture gave birth to you. Catholics however take that one verse and create a whole theology around it in which a ceremony is included into the mass where the priest "transforms" the bread into literally the flesh of JC. This literal flesh is supposed to contain all these special graces which is available to those who eat it. The interesting thing is that JC said exactly what the eating of the bread really means in the next verses. It's to be done IN REMEBERANCE of him. That's all it is, something to help us remember what God did for us through JC. Just like the passover was instituted to remind Jews of what God did for them at Egypt. I think Catholics are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

Junglej,
There is a term sometimes called Aubergine, which means that something is lost in translation. Also the problem could be a Cultural Expression, which our generation does not understand exactly as the generation did at the time of writing.
This seems to be the case here. In the original Greek Scriptures, Jesus said; This is, several times when speaking about the bread and the wine, Matt 26:26,27, 1Cor 11:24,25. The Jews at the time knew what he meant. Today, some people want to believe something that Jesus would never have meant, something that was against the Law of God, the eating of blood, and the eating of human flesh. This was definitely shone to be the case, as can be seen at John 6:48-69. Here you have several people who were just looking for an excuse to leave Jesus, because they realized it was not easy. They did not wait to get a complete understanding as the close disciples did. Even when Jesus said that he was the bread from haeven, of course he meant that he symbolized God's words that would give life just as bread would. Jesus also said something similar to the Samaritan woman at John 4:7-15.
By the way, I think that verse John 4:25 is one of the most heartwarming scriptures in the whole Bible. Here Jesus declares that he is the Messiah or Christ, to a woman, and a Samaritan woman at that. This was when women were held in very low esteem, by men in general, but not by Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

You need to heed the testimony of Yeshua, who said, "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees".(Mt 16:6)

In this case, "leaven" doesn't refer to bread. If you were to read a little further, in vs. 11 Jesus says, "How could you fail to perceive that I was not speaking about bread?" "Leaven" is a metaphor for poison.

And the "Word" is the alpha and the omega. It is the beginning and the end. There is no "Passover before the Law and the prophets" for the "Word". The "Word" is from the beginning.

This makes no sense. Whatsoever.

As for you not understanding the concept of using unleavened bread with respect to the last supper

:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

I've written a scholastic treatment of the theology of the Eucharist, which is in process of being published, but I guess I just don't understand the concept...
Yeah.

that is as written, and according to Scripture.
Is 8:9-10, " Than I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me."

You realize that, when Isaiah wrote this, he had no concept of "Eucharist" in the sense we mean. Isaiah does not help your cause here.

But keep trying.

 

[obi one]

In this case, "leaven" doesn't refer to bread. If you were to read a little further, in vs. 11 Jesus says, "How could you fail to perceive that I was not speaking about bread?" "Leaven" is a metaphor for poison.

This makes no sense. Whatsoever.


:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:
hy
I've written a scholastic treatment of the theology of the Eucharist, which is in process of being published, but I guess I just don't understand the concept...
Yeah.


You realize that, when Isaiah wrote this, he had no concept of "Eucharist" in the sense we mean. Isaiah does not help your cause here.

But keep trying.

Leaven stands for the double minded hypocracy of the Pharisees. Mt 16:6," ..beware of the leaven of the Pharisees...." Leaven is not bread, it is the yeast put into the bread to change the character of the bread.

As for your "scholastic" treatment of the Eucharist, give me a break. Is 56:11, "and they are shepherd with no understanding"

As for Isaiah not having any knowledge of the Eucharist, give it up. Isaiah is part of the Revelation of the Spirit of God. There is no knowledge hidden from the Spirit of God. And as for the quote from Isaiah it refers to the fact that Yeshua spoke in parables to fulfill the Scripture Is 6-9," Keep on listening, but do not perceive".
For it is not the "scholaristic" who understand, but the babes. Mt 11:25, "I praise thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reaveal them to babes". Don't get me wrong, it is not that I think you are intelligent, it is just that people who write "scholastic" treatments, tend to consider themselves intelligent.

 

[SaintAugustine]

In point in fact...some diciples did get up and leave when he said those words..but Jesus never says, come back come back..its only symbolic.

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”


61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

 

[Mehr Licht]

What happens to the bread and wine is what happens to us when we become partakers of the divine nature. Eventually all of creation will be eucharist and divine. Christ will be all in all. This is sort of like a foretaste of the eschatalogical state. Only those with faith are able to take part in it to their salvation though. Those who do not discern the Lords body, those who are not in Christ, take it to their condemnation. I would say that it's just bread for them but it seems that it's actually much worse.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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."

When ever we celebrate the Eucharist we do so in the Presence of Jesus
This is the only sacrament he instructed us to repeat when ever we came together.
There is only one Eucharist, he reaches out and it is always celebrated with him, in his presence.

It still represents his sacrifice that was to come.

The bread and wine was representational then, and it is representational now. he was neither dead nor had shed his Blood. But the die was cast. His sacrifice was certain.

When we accept the Eucharist we are all one body in Christ.

 

[obi one]

When ever we celebrate the Eucharist we do so in the Presence of Jesus
This is the only sacrament he instructed us to repeat when ever we came together.
There is only one Eucharist, he reaches out and it is always celebrated with him, in his presence.

It still represents his sacrifice that was to come.

The bread and wine was representational then, and it is representational now. he was neither dead nor had shed his Blood. But the die was cast. His sacrifice was certain.

When we accept the Eucharist we are all one body in Christ.

The unleavened bread was a physical manifestation of a Spiritual message. The message was that, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63) "You have words of eternal life". Yeshua is representing himself through the physical unleavened bread which you must eat. You must consume the bread of life, the "Word", his testimony, and do so without the leaven of the Pharisees, which is double minded hypocracy. And the wine is representative of you must believe his testimony, which is the Spirit of prophecy. (Rev 19:10) If you believe in the "Word" the bread of life, you will never thirst. (John 6:35) He who comes to Yeshua, (John 6:35) will never hunger, for you must eat of the flesh of the Son of man (John 6:53), and Yeshua is the "Word" made flesh. You must eat the "Word", but the "Word" is shown as being without leaven.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The unleavened bread was a physical manifestation of a Spiritual message. The message was that, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63) "You have words of eternal life". Yeshua is representing himself through the physical unleavened bread which you must eat. You must consume the bread of life, the "Word", his testimony, and do so without the leaven of the Pharisees, which is double minded hypocracy. And the wine is representative of you must believe his testimony, which is the Spirit of prophecy. (Rev 19:10) If you believe in the "Word" the bread of life, you will never thirst. (John 6:35) He who comes to Yeshua, (John 6:35) will never hunger, for you must eat of the flesh of the Son of man (John 6:53), and Yeshua is the "Word" made flesh. You must eat the "Word", but the "Word" is shown as being without leaven.

I am afraid I find that sort of stuff mumbo jumbo.
The Eucharist is about what it says it is about.
But believe what you wish... it is what we all do.

 

[Scott1]

Hey Christian bros, I didn't want the Doctrines of Mary thread to get off track talking about the Eucharist. Let's talk about the orthodox Protestant translation verses the Catholic .Regarding the "this is my body verse."

Hiya all... cool thread.

My opinion is that when one is trying to determine the meaning of a verse/doctrine sometime it helps to see what the 1st generation of the nascent church believed. "Dueling Bible verses" is a fun pastime, but of little value when seeking the truth methinks... you can pluck a verse or two for just about anything if you warp it to your way of thinking.

As far as the Eucharist, in the early church there was NO DOUBT as to what the Eucharist was:
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

and as far as interpreting Scripture, knowledge of the language is a bit more helpful than the King James version:

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

www.scripturecatholic.com

Peace,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

Leaven stands for the double minded hypocracy of the Pharisees. Mt 16:6," ..beware of the leaven of the Pharisees...." Leaven is not bread, it is the yeast put into the bread to change the character of the bread.

As for your "scholastic" treatment of the Eucharist, give me a break. Is 56:11, "and they are shepherd with no understanding"

As for Isaiah not having any knowledge of the Eucharist, give it up. Isaiah is part of the Revelation of the Spirit of God. There is no knowledge hidden from the Spirit of God. And as for the quote from Isaiah it refers to the fact that Yeshua spoke in parables to fulfill the Scripture Is 6-9," Keep on listening, but do not perceive".
For it is not the "scholaristic" who understand, but the babes. Mt 11:25, "I praise thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reaveal them to babes". Don't get me wrong, it is not that I think you are intelligent, it is just that people who write "scholastic" treatments, tend to consider themselves intelligent.

In what way could Isaiah, who lived hundreds of years before the fact, writing to people who lived. Hundreds of years before the fact -- and had not concept for Eucharist, be talking about Eucharist? Answer: he wasn't.

As for your comment about babes: I suppose non-scholars translated the bible so you could read it?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Mk. Here it is:


From post #133 in the other thread.

As far as pulling the past into the present, this isn't a concept unique to the Bible. In fact it's a feature of viewing time in a circular fashion as opposed to the linear understanding we have of time in the West. Certain cultures view memories as far more than just a record of the past, they view them as bringing the past into the present. I still see no reason to believe the Eucharist is anything other than a memorial ceremony from a culture that views time in a circular fashion

 

[Kathryn]

When ever we celebrate the Eucharist we do so in the Presence of Jesus
This is the only sacrament he instructed us to repeat when ever we came together.
There is only one Eucharist, he reaches out and it is always celebrated with him, in his presence.

It still represents his sacrifice that was to come.

The bread and wine was representational then, and it is representational now. he was neither dead nor had shed his Blood. But the die was cast. His sacrifice was certain.

When we accept the Eucharist we are all one body in Christ.

And the people said, "Amen!"

 

[sojourner]

As far as pulling the past into the present, this isn't a concept unique to the Bible. In fact it's a feature of viewing time in a circular fashion as opposed to the linear understanding we have of time in the West. Certain cultures view memories as far more than just a record of the past, they view them as bringing the past into the present. I still see no reason to believe the Eucharist is anything other than a memorial ceremony from a culture that views time in a circular fashion

It's not a memorial if it's really happening, though.

 

[Kathryn]

You quote the gospel of John, but per the Gospel of John, at the "last supper", the only one specifically described eating bread was Judas, which was imagery for him eating Satan. The quotes you use about flesh and blood, comes way before the "last supper" event. The Imagery used in John's gospel concerning the "last supper", was the imagery of the washing of the feet, whereas all the disciples were clean, except for their dirty feet, by means of the baptism of the Spirit, the exception being Judas. Both gospels have parallel ideas of the baptism of the Spirit, but one shows the imagery in the form of washing feet, and one shows it in eating unleavened bread (1 Peter 1:23). Whether you wash feet, or eat unleavened bread, both are only the imagery of the baptism of the Spirit, as in being born again in the Spirit.

Wow. Just...wow. Way to completely disregard whole passages that don't conform to your own belief.

 

[obi one]

Wow. Just...wow. Way to completely disregard whole passages that don't conform to your own belief.

It would be helpful if you would point out the "whole passages" that were disregarded. Not everyone has your ability to read minds. Please include references and the context of the references.

 

[Kathryn]

It would be helpful if you would point out the "whole passages" that were disregarded. Not everyone has your ability to read minds. Please include references and the context of the references.

The references have already been given by others on this thread. You apparently ignored the wide range of passages about the Eucharist that others offered you.

 

[obi one]

The references have already been given by others on this thread. You apparently ignored the wide range of passages about the Eucharist that others offered you.

The passages previously quoted on this topic, that I looked at, were not taken from the "last supper", but were given previously by Yeshua in a different setting. The gospel of John, with respect to the "last supper", does not include the excerpts about flesh and blood. The only bread specifically mentioned was respect to Satan and Judas. The conversation that occured at the "last supper", with respect to the gospel of John, was completedly different from that of Matthew. John's narrative was more about the washing of feet. Same message, but different parable.

 

[Kathryn]

The passages previously quoted on this topic, that I looked at, were not taken from the "last supper", but were given previously by Yeshua in a different setting. The gospel of John, with respect to the "last supper", does not include the excerpts about flesh and blood. The only bread specifically mentioned was respect to Satan and Judas. The conversation that occured at the "last supper", with respect to the gospel of John, was completedly different from that of Matthew. John's narrative was more about the washing of feet. Same message, but different parable.

But Eucharistic doctrine is based on many different biblical passages, not just the Last Supper. You're putting an unnecessary limitation on the subject.

 

[obi one]

But Eucharistic doctrine is based on many different biblical passages, not just the Last Supper. You're putting an unnecessary limitation on the subject.

I am not putting limitations on what is written in John. I am only being specific as to what was written and the circumstances surrounding those writings. You are simply adding the churches interpretation as to what was not written, but that which was assumed. The gospel of John simply states the the same message of the gospel of Matthew, but in a different manner, which does not include actually eating the flesh and blood of Yeshua at the last supper. The "flesh and blood" is simply physical imagery for a Spiritual happening, which can be be portrayed using different imagery. The washing of feet, expressed by John, was what he empasized in his last supper imagery. It is the same message, using different imagery. There is no actual eating of the flesh and blood of Yeshua. It is Spiritual imagery which can be portrayed in different manners, and under different circumstances.

The pope actually washes the feet of people on "good Friday" but he has little understanding of the actual meaning behind the imagery of either the eating of unleavened bread or of the washing of feet.