Haha. Yeah. It is ironic. No Christian would stand for that type of thing.
Yes, the symbolism linking the wine with the crucifixion and resurrection with the bread make perfect sense.
Since the spirit of christ actually exist
The Lord's Supper (according to christians) actually took place. I have no reason to think not.
Blessings are actually real
The bread and wine are actually real.
According to christians, the crucifixion is real and so is his resurrection.
I understand the literalness of consecrated bread and wine.
The bread and wine is blessed (consecrated)
The Mass is a union or body of people coming together in Christ
Once the bread is blessed, Christ spirit (above) is present in the Eucharist
Since more than one body is present, Christ is present in spirit (literal spirit) in Mass (the people)
When bread and wine are taken, they
are the bread of life: one because of the blessings and two the spirit of christ is actually in the bread and wine.
As for the terminology, don't let that throw you:
Christians come together to make Christ present and they gather in communion by consuming blessed bread and wine they feel has the spirit of Christ therefore they die to their sins (confessed) and rise to life (change their old to new) to be back as one as the body/people of Christ.
Protestants come together too and do the same thing with the bread and wine. For protestants its an event based on the last supper too.
Protestants
call it symbolism. Catholics don't.
That's debatable. Most Christians believe that Jesus brought a New Covenant. I've seen both Jews and atheists argue He didn't because it suits theirs agenda. A careful examination of scripture supports a New Covenant, which is where the term New Testament comes from. Jeremiah 31:13 and Hebrews 8:13 couldn't be any clearer.
Jeremiah doesn't relate to what we're talking about.
"13 When he says, A new agreement, he has made the first agreement old. But anything which is getting old and past use will not be seen much longer." You can't read this in isolation. Remember jesus said he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. The laws are "no longer" applicable to the gentiles, jews, men, women, etc. However, they still exist in these two laws: Love god/creator with all your heart and love others.
Christianity is about god and people.
So how do you literally pick up your sins? My point is to properly consider the nature of our relationship with ourselves, Christ, and God we need to have a deeper understanding of scripture which involves symbolism. That was my point in quoting Matthew 18:21-22, which links to Matthew 24:15 which in turn links to Daniel 9:24-27 and then back to Matthew 18:21-22. Unless we can demonstrate that we understand these connections by what proof can we say we understand the Bible and the teachings of Christ?
You're thrown off by the words again.
People "pick up their sins" by carrying their burdens and guilt for their transgressions against god. It's a metaphor-the words not the concept-for "the burden of one's sins." It's not symbolic. People actually have sins that burden them, right?
I'm not a Bible quoter, though. This is from my study and experience as an former Christian not from what I study. That's like my studying Hinduism and claiming that I know more about it than a Hindu.
That is what I've been saying all along, that we are the body of Christ. How is that not symbolic as well as literal?
Body means group of people by one of many actual definitions of the word.
How can that be symbolic? You used to be christian and go to Mass, right? Did you see more than one person in worship together?
Of course no protestant takes communion by themselves or is baptised alone. However the Baptism like communion means something. That meaning is a tradition linked to a symbolic meaning. If we are just going through the tradition because that's what our ancestors did, and we don't understand why, then it becomes an empty ritual.
Communion and baptism isn't symbolic. Communion means more than one person
come together to commune or worship together with like-minds, their peers.
Baptism means changing your actions from old to new by the spirit of christ.
Is people joining together symbolism?
Is people changing their actions they have against god by the actual spirit of christ symbolic?
Is a person's relationship with christ symbolic?
Its ironic two ex-Christians having this discussion. I think we need both the experience and understanding. A belief in God and an eternal soul is where we differ but I'm not trying to convince you of the truth of this matter. However I am saying its a prerequisite for understanding biblical scripture.
I've experienced and studied it. I just don't use the flowery language or metaphors to describe a very simple and literal action and relationship people have (and I had) with christ.
I think you are caught up on the words. My belief in god doesn't mean I don't understand it. I mean, I see people here convert to god and all of the sudden they are speaking in poetry. Is that a commandment of some sort to do so?
Sometimes to make sense of one scripture means leaving it for a while and working on something else that is more readily comprehensible.
The Buddha's scriptures, though thick, are more comprehensible in a reality sense. I can actually observe his teachings in real life without my needing to believe in it. Unlike Christianity that goes off belief and faith and without it "one doesn't understand" for some odd reason, the facts of Buddhism exist regardless my belief and faith. Which is cool but I don't put The Buddha on a pedestal. That's the difference between me and a Buddhist (and me and Christ for that matter).
