Communion/Eucharist

Well, as far as the passover lamb, they ate it. They ate the flesh of the sacrifice. So, you can see how that correlates. Here is another point when you read the institution of the Eucharist (which means by the way, Thankgiving freely given and was used by the earliest christians) Jesus says (in Greek) 'this "is" my body' which is primarility used as a term indicating "is" or can equate to. I find this a curious thing. Don't try to use modern connotations of the word use. I generally find that in applicable in the ancient setting. You can use their views of understanding based on language and cultural understandings. And though I'm still studing these matters I'm open to a good point. I'll gander at the book though maybe you can take a gander at Catholicism and Fundalmentalism by Karl Keating and tell me what you think about it. I like to hear both sides of an argument before drawing a conclusion. Though before people start believing wrong things about me let me state here that yes I've been born again. Yes, I've been emersed in baptism. Yes, I have a personal relationship with the Lord. Yes, I've graduated from a baptist University. No, I don't have an Mdiv though I minored in bible. I've even been on mission trips and participated in church building. But I also know that things aren't always what they seem. And people tend to believe what has been said whether or not there is evidence for them. Theology, unfortuanately, works a lot like that. Consider chick tracks. I've enjoyed reading them however I can not tell you the number of people who put stock in them even though they have been proven wrong time and again and don't really have that many converts. People don't like asking the hard questions (because they are often abused for it) but I think it should be done. Get beyond hersay and to the source is my thoughts on these things.

 

Allan, you have nailed it. There is nothing complicated or mysterious about the Lord's Supper. You have zeroed in on the main purpose: Remember.

 

All right, scholars, help me out. Were there not two events in the Upper Room that night?

Jesus and the 12 had the passover meal, after which he took the bread and cup, the way I read the accounts.

The Passover meal was an Old Covenant event. Didn't Jesus clearly state that the LS was the New Covenant? This is where the focus shifted from the lamb to the Lamb.

What's mystical about that? What's sacramental about that? The Passover meal did not save the children of Israel. Why should the Lord's Supper have saving value?

 

No one has ever claimed that it has. Not even the RCC. Not the Orthodox. No one. Saving grace has already occured. Sacramental does not mean saving grace. It is a dispensation of particular grace to keep the believer on track. I think when it comes to traditional Christianity Protestants, and baptist combine a combination of things into one aspect like grace. When someone says grace it is automatically assume saving as in Salvation rather than as a part of salvation. You believe and are saved by grace. But here is the issue. You still stuggle with sin. Protestants pray, read scriptures to deal with that. RCC, Orthodox believe that in addition to that there is a special dispensation of graces in the sacraments that help with it. Positionally, we are saved by Jesus and his sacrafice. The Eucharist falls into this catagory. It looks back to the work of christ. God is out side time sometimes we're too linear in our thinking. However, understanding God is outside of time helps to understand scriptures a lot better. We're bound to it.

 

Then why did so many disciples leave?

 

Some scholars (and I am not a scholar) say there were two events. The first would have been the Passover meal and the second would have been the institution of the Lord's Supper afterward. However, a careful reading of the gospels portrays one event, the Passover seder, with the breaking of bread and passing the cup being an intertal part of the traditional seder. It even goes further inasmuch as they departed into the night having drunk only 3 out of the traditional 4 cups. When Jesus prayed, "Let this cup pass from me," it is thought that he may have been referring to the 4th cup. The 4th cup would have been the cup of sour wine He accepted just before His death.

Actually, Tom, the Passover meal did save the children of Israel from the death angel before they departed Egypt.

 

In Matthew 26, starting with v 17, the disciples inquired where they would observe the passover.

After Jesus revealed that one of of the disciples would betray him, they all asked him who it was. He replied, in v. 23, the one who dips his hand with me in the dish.

The Lord's Supper has no "dipping into the dish."

In v.26, "as they were eating," Jesus took the bread and began the process of instituting the Lord's Supper. This is why I suggest that there are two separate events in view.

This may be nit-picking, but it wasn't the Passover meal which saved the children of Israel from the death angel. It was the blood on the doorpost, the blood of the lamb. This looks to me to be a picture of salvation to those who are under the blood of the Lamb.

 

The whole dipping thing is part of the Sader where the bread is dipped into the bitter herbs.

 

Not really. Passover Lamb is meat - it's food. Jesus is not food; he's a person and is God. No analogy there. The idea that the bread and wine is magically transformed into the actual blood and flesh of Christ is very pagan thinking, imo.

Well, I've already looked at Catholic teachings on this. In fact, I have the official Catholic Catechism on my desk. I've also talked to Catholics.

Another good book is Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, by Norman Geisler. Even some Roman Catholics endorsed this book, saying it gives a fair and accurate view of RC teachings.

I've also considered John 6, reading it numerous times in context, and do not see how it supports Transubstantiation. It is teaching that believing on Christ is eternal life, not eating bread and wine transformed into his flesh and blood.

I notice that here and in the forum Christian denominations you always present an apologetic for Roman Catholicism when it comes up. Are you sure you are a Baptist? Or are you a Baptist thinking of joining the RC Church? I ask because I've never seen a Baptist defend RC teachings the way you do, except for Baptists who are considering joining the RC church. Why do you defend RC teachings so vigorously and consistently?

 

They didn't leave because of statements about his body and blood, but because he said they must believe in Him. Some did not believe in Him and left.

 

The RC Eucharist is much more than this! This is all from the Catechism online at http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html (underlining is mine)

The Eucharist has a power or grace in itself for forgiveness (so forgiveness of all sins upon belief is hereby invalidated by this statement):

The Eucharist re-sacrifices Christ, making a mockery of his once for all sacrifice on the cross. Also, Christ is contained in the monstrance at every Eucharist offering.

 

The Eucharist is idolatrous. Ask any former Roman Catholic who is now a born-again believer and they will agree how repulsed they are by realizing they were worshiping bread and wine!

Taking the Eucharist brings about reparation "for sins of the living and the dead!"

The more I read about and study the Eucharist, the more alarmed I become. In fact, it is a stated agenda of the RC church to get non-RC Christians into their church through the Eucharist teaching. A book on this is Another Jesus: The Eucharist Christ and the New Evangelization, by Roger Oakland.

 

To understand what was happening that night, you have to go outside scripture and look at what Jews did (do) at a passover seder. The order of eating and drinking is precise and complex. Rather than recite it all, I would recommend this Wiki article as a quick overview. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder#Kos_Shlishi_.28the_Third_Cup_of_Wine.29 The key to understanding the Last Supper is the song, or the Hallel. They eat the meal in a particular order, then they have the third cup of wine (Kos Shlishi) Following the third cup is the Hallel. Finally there is a fourth cup of wine. In the gospels, Jesus and the disciples went out into the night after singing the hymn and there is nothing said about the fourth cup of wine.

You are technically correct that it was the sprinkled blood on the door posts that saved the first born. This is a foreshadowing of the shed blood of Christ saving us. But the people were specifically instructed to kill a lamb and eat the whole thing. We see this in Exodus 12. Just as the people ate the flesh of the lamb, we eat the flesh of the Lamb. The lamb was not to have any bones broken, reminding us of Christ, whose bones were never broken. Also, the blood was sprinkled with a hyssop branch. At the crucifixion, it was a hyssop branch that lifted the sponge of sour wine to Jesus' mouth. The similarities are amazing.

 

I suggest you read my post on the Catholic funeral post. Yes I do defend the RC teachings because like many things people walk away believing things people tell them with out study. In any debate, you need two sides. I take up the other side often to clarify what I think more accurately represents the other side not some passed on nonsence by people who don't know what they are talking about. It's easy on a computer to posit ideas and consepts as objective person that is in no way related to yourself. Here most are baptist so they all believe similar things. What really got me was where some have said that there are no christians in the RCC. I disagree with this. I believe there are believers in every christian denomination. I believe the RCC to be Christian though many disagree with me. I don't understand that if the RCC was so pagan and not christian and insidious how did we come to the entire truth 1500 years later. It should have been so misused that there would be no recognition. I submit that the RCC is and was christian and as absolute power corrupts absolutely so the leadership of the RCC were some time before the Reformation and during it. There were many Catholics that went against the leadership we don't recognize as faithful believers in Christ. I also like history and church history and there are many falicious statements regarding it, I would also like to clear up. I think as Christians we have a great historical heritage. I think we should take pride in it. The Reformation is proof of that. Christianity was astray in its leadership. The people lead it back. But I would not say they worship Isis or that the Eucharist is Mithraic worship etc.... That is why. I could jump on the anti catholic band wagon but what kind of debat would that be?

My theology is always in development. I believe in Fundemental issues such as Jesus died once and for all for my sins, I believe in the trinity, I believe in the virgin birth, I believe in the two natures of christ, I believe in the scriptures (which I read daily), I believe that the Holy Spirit fills each born again believer and leads them in relationship with Jesus and truth. I believe in Heaven (and the reward thereof) and hell (and the punishments thereof), I believe in the resurection of the dead, I believe in a last judgement. I believe that the entire law hangs on two concepts: to love the lord your God with all your heart and might and to love your neighbor as yourself. Those are fundemetal believes.

As far as free will and predestination My leaning is more Calvanistic. I hold to coventant concept in understanding scriptures rather than dispensationalism. The more detail concepts of theology is still in progress but the fundamentals are the same. I go to a baptist church which is pointed out on the other thread. This is a forum for discussion. I like interesting discussion and will hold to that. I get bored when people ask questions like should we tithe? (BTW I do) or Should pastors get paid. I find those discussions menial. I like the more difficult stuff and not having gone for an MDIV in school and settled for graduate degree in business management for employment purposes. So, I use this forum as my thought board as my informal discussion area for questions I don't really deal with on a day to day basis but would like to ask. I think people take themselves far to seriously. If reall debate and flow of ideals aren't being explored whats the point? Have I evangelized anyone to go to the RCC? I ask questions that arise or clarify items of interest.

I also try to take scriptures in the context of the period that they are written which I've heard too many sermons explaining scriptures from a modern context. I understand giving it a modern application but not to be understood that way. For instance everytime the scriptures are mentioned in the NT it is the OT that they are talking about. Not modern (for that time) letters going out. But we read it that way. Jesus was a rabbi. The woman who touched him to be healed from her bleeding touched his tassle not the edge of his cloak. Get my point?

 

Marcia, I would've also defended some of the RCC's teachings here, but I've left that to others. I'm not considering joining the RCC, but people will believe anything about them. Some of that is backed up with anecdotal evidence of having friends or family who are part of the RCC and know very little about their faith, which leads many to question if there's any faith there. Of course, there's no more strident opponent of the RCC than a person who grew up as a part of it and later joined another branch of Christianity. I will say that I've found my understanding of grace (as well as that of the RCC, not equating the two here) to butt heads with many on this board, and that is part of the problem when RCC doctrines come up here.
​

 

This is the context from the gospel of John:

I underlined the essentials of the argument.

 

But this is not why they left. It does not say this is why they left. The context of it is that they left because they did not believe.

 

Nothing you said here responds to the points I made on this thread about the Eucharist, showing its unbiblical teachings.

Yes, there are believers in the RC church, but that is despite their teachings, not because of them.

Why are you not responding to what I posted from the Catechism? What about worshiping the elements?

 

Just because some people have wrong views about the RC, that does not mean the RC teachings are valid. I am not a former Roman Catholic. In fact, there are no Catholics in my family at all (my father was agnostic, my mother a nominal Christian and I was unsaved until a rather late age). I've had to study this issue for several reasons related to my ministry. Since I have a ministry, it's absolutely essential that I be as accurate as possible about any faith I discuss, and I strive for that. So let's deal with what the RC Church does teach such as what I posted.

The issue here is not whether people have correct views or not of the RC faith. I posted excerpts from the catechism and no one who is defending the Eucharist has responded to that.

The thread is about views of the Eucharist and communion. So I've entered the discussion but where are is the rebuttal to what I posted?

 

Right after the verses I quoted it then states:

They didn't believe what he taught Yes thats right what did he teach? That's the object he was teachng that he was food. Now the verses that give me a bit more to think on is that he said this is of spirit. What does that mean that it feeds us spiritually? How does that work? I relate it to what he said to Nicodemus in the born again dialogue.