1 Corinthians 11:29-30

  • Thread starter Thread starter E.E.N.S
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

E.E.N.S

Guest
(Objection: The Eucharist is only a symbol.)

11:29 *For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. *

11:30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

You cannot bring judgement upon yourself from eating a symbol. This context is talking about the bread and wine being Jesus’ body and blood. Webster’s Dictionary defines discern as, “to percieive by the sight or some other sense or by the intellect.” (The other sense we possess is our Faith.) Partaking of the bread and wine without recognizing the body and blood of Christ is a very serious offense against God. Some Bible translations state that you bring “condemnation” (judgement) upon yourself.
 
1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? If I make a symbol of Karl Keating, like say, this 🙂 and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol.( like say, this! http://bestsmileys.com/violent/10.gif ) I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he? There is the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.
 
Another thing to point out from the OT, foreshadowing the Eucharist.

God does not make mistakes and he set this whole thing up.

First of all, consider Passover. God told the Hebrews to sacrifice LAMBS and smear the blood on their door posts. He did not direct them to use fingerpaint or crush red bugs that were used to make red dye to symbolize the blood of a slaughtered sacrificial lamb. God was very serious on this point. Had the Hebrews taken this symbolically, they would have themselves sacrificed their own firstborn sons.

Then what were they ordered to do? Why, to EAT the slaughtered lamb, whose blood was their salvation.

Then we see the parallel of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, from John 6, talking to the people about how his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink.

Jesus did away with the animal holocausts, for he took their place, and like the Hebrews, we are saved by the blood of the Lamb, and we eat his flesh in the form of the Eucharist.

Additionally, the death of Jesus occurred at the same time the lambs for the Passover sacrifice were slaughtered.

Jesus also had a habit of repeating himself very patiently and telling parables to describe what people did not understand. Yet, when he gave this teaching, he did not change his position and did not leave the literal behind. He was very clear and very direct and the people left him because his teaching was too hard to take.

Why did they leave if he was only speaking in parables? Why did the people flee his insane teaching if it was only symbolic? Obviously they saw that he was speaking very seriously, especially when he did not change his teaching to a different parable as he did when describing the sheepgate and the vine.

They fled because Jesus was serious and he was saying that his flesh really is food, and his blood really is drink.

And when Jesus told the apostles at the Last supper, “Do this in memory of me”, he wasn’t saying that they should do this to only save their recollection of him, but he was giving them the power, through the Holy Spirit, to change the bread and wine info his flesh and blood.

He was saying to them, “Do this as I do, pay attention to my words and follow in my footsteps exactly as I call you to do.”
 
E.E.N.S.:
11:29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

11:30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

You cannot bring judgement upon yourself from eating a symbol.
Click to expand...
Are you sure?

Matthew 5:21-22 (NASB95)
*21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’
22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. *

The implication above is that anger toward your brother is the same as murder, and it is sufficient to be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:27-28 (NASB95)
*27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’;
28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. *

There is no implication here, but a clear statement of fact: looking lustfully is adultery.
E.E.N.S.:
This context is talking about the bread and wine being Jesus’ body and blood.
Click to expand...
I think the context is the remembrance of the Lord’s Supper.
E.E.N.S.:
Webster’s Dictionary defines discern as, “to percieive by the sight or some other sense or by the intellect.” (The other sense we possess is our Faith.)
Click to expand...
I don’t think that faith is a sense, but if you want to believe that go ahead. The word translated “discern” is diakrino, and also means to distinguish. The sense is to distinguish that the remembrance of the Last Supper is solemn inasmuch as the Lord gave His body up for us. I reject the real presence and to try and impose it here is a real stretch.

**Hebrews 6:6 (NASB95)***6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. *

**Hebrews 10:29 (NASB95)***29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? *

In the above two verses the same guilt is attached to the one who rejects Christ and returns to Judaism; the one who does this is said to crucify the Son of God again. That also speaks against real presence—crucifying Him again, which is what the Mass purports to do.

Notice again, it is untoward and disgraceful behavior in Heb 10:29 that is said to trample under foot the Son of God.

The whole sense is not the real presence, but guilt of the actual crucifixion
E.E.N.S.:
Partaking of the bread and wine without recognizing the body and blood of Christ is a very serious offense against God. Some Bible translations state that you bring “condemnation” (judgement) upon yourself.
Click to expand...
Again, the presupposition of real presence intrudes. As the two verses cited from Hebrews show, even outside of the remembrance of the Last Supper, one’s misbehavior can render one guilty of the body and blood and of Christ. To try and prove real presence from the 1 Cor 11 passage can be done only if one presupposes it.
 
40.png
sandusky:
Are you sure?

That also speaks against real presence—crucifying Him again, which is what the Mass purports to do.

.
Click to expand...
The Holy Mass does not purport to “crucify Jesus again”. This is a very common misconception.

Jesus died once; he was crucified ONCE and for all and this cannot be recreated. The Mass is referred to as the “unbloody sacrifice”.

To God, who is eternal, we are only dust, and so at the time of consecration, we are again present at the original crucifixion…we are present at the foot of the cross.

We do not crucify Christ again, he does not die again.

Rather, much as Jesus changed the water into wine at Caana, the Holy Spirit changes the species of the bread into the flesh of Jesus and the wine into the blood of Jesus.

We do not rely on Corinthians to tell us this, but rather, to John 6, Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22: 19-20, “This is my body, which will be givne for you…new covenant in my blood”.

Consider the passover covenant:
  • They sacrificed the Lamb and were saved by the blood
  • they consumed the flesh of the Lamb.
Jesus was the new lamb, he was and is the new covenant. To fulfill this covenant, we have to fulfill our Jewish history and complete the agreement…we have to consume the actual flesh of the Lamb.

As far as your references to sin…well, I see your point but you’re comparing apples to oranges. Sin is sin. When we sin in thought, we are sinning against God if not directly against the person. We sin in intent.

But when we partake of the flesh of the Lamb unworthily, we are commpounding our sin into something much greater.

Remember that Judas was present at the Last Supper and he partook with the rest of the apostles. He was in a state of sin at the time as the betrayer of the Lord; he was at the time guilty of murder as he was the one who handed Jesus over. Then he recieved the bread and wine at the Last Supper…and we see what became of him.

This is a precursur to the rest of us, we are to learn from this that if we are Judas, if we sin, and then recieve the Lord unworthily, we are recieving our judgment. Judas was spiritually dead at the Last Supper…and then he committed the sin of suicide when he realized what he had done.

Unfortunately, I am for some reason unable to fully say what I’m trying to explain here…can anyone help?
 
40.png
sandusky:
Again, the presupposition of real presence intrudes. As the two verses cited from Hebrews show, even outside of the remembrance of the Last Supper, one’s misbehavior can render one guilty of the body and blood and of Christ. To try and prove real presence from the 1 Cor 11 passage can be done only if one presupposes it.
Click to expand...
Is that an infallible statement? 😉
 
E.E.N.S.:
Is that an infallible statement? 😉
Click to expand...
No. The point is that the physical presence of the Christ is not necessary to be guilty of His Body (crucify, tample on). :twocents:
 
40.png
sandusky:
No. The point is that the physical presence of the Christ is not necessary to be guilty of His Body (crucify, tample on). :twocents:
Click to expand...
Bunk! What did St.Paul tell us (in 1st Corinthians 11:23-30) about this very thing! You can say what you will but what you are saying does not align with either the NT or what the apostle St. John taught his own disciples before he died, as evidenced by this excerpt from the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna, less than 10 years after St John died.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.The entire letter!

Only the “reformers” concocted this… :yawn:
 
40.png
sandusky:
No. The point is that the physical presence of the Christ is not necessary to be guilty of His Body (crucify, tample on). :twocents:
Click to expand...
So if I have a picture of your mother (let’s say) and I physically abuse it and step on it - am I guilty of anything? No. However, if I do the same thing to your mother, I am most definately guilty, and I will most assuredly be thrown in jail for it.
 
E.E.N.S.:
So if I have a picture of your mother (let’s say) and I physically abuse it and step on it - am I guilty of anything? No. However, if I do the same thing to your mother, I am most definately guilty, and I will most assuredly be thrown in jail for it.
Click to expand...
Yes, because you have physically abused my mother. But the verses I cited from Hebrews, Jesus is not being abused, physically; He is at the right hand of the Father, so too, the 1 Cor 11 verse.

I believe in a real presence spiritually, there is biblical confirmation of that; Christ does indwell the believer, says He will be with us always, says when we are gathered in His name; I do not believe in transsubstantiation. It makes no sense.
 
Church Militant:
Bunk! What did St.Paul tell us (in 1st Corinthians 11:23-30) about this very thing! You can say what you will but what you are saying does not align with either the NT or what the apostle St. John taught his own disciples before he died, as evidenced by this excerpt from the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna, less than 10 years after St John died.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.The entire letter!

Only the “reformers” concocted this… :yawn:
Click to expand...
I will read the entire letter, thanks for the link. I am well aware that from the earliest church fathers, real presence is real to them. However, you are understanding it Materially; I do not think it should be understood that way in the ECFs, but spiritually. Material real presence/transsubstantiation is a later development concocted by…??

I reject it. :tsktsk:
 
40.png
sandusky:
I will read the entire letter, thanks for the link. I am well aware that from the earliest church fathers, real presence is real to them. However, you are understanding it Materially; I do not think it should be understood that way in the ECFs, but spiritually. Material real presence/transsubstantiation is a later development concocted by…??

I reject it. :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
Careful what you reject my friend. The Eucharist is the Real Presence both materially and spiritually. It is quite easy for some people to reject the physical aspect of our faith. You must remember that Christ was fully human (physically) and fully divine (spiritually). We receive Him in that way today in the Catholic Church (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity). It is a beautiful thing. 🙂
 
40.png
sandusky:
Yes, because you have physically abused my mother. But the verses I cited from Hebrews, Jesus is not being abused, physically; He is at the right hand of the Father, so too, the 1 Cor 11 verse.

I believe in a real presence spiritually, there is biblical confirmation of that; Christ does indwell the believer, says He will be with us always, says when we are gathered in His name; I do not believe in transsubstantiation. It makes no sense.
Click to expand...
No, I said a picture of your mother:
**
E.E.N.S.:
So if I have a picture of your mother (let’s say) and I physically abuse it and step on it - am I guilty of anything? No. However, if I do the same thing to your mother, I am most definately guilty, and I will most assuredly be thrown in jail for it.**
 
40.png
sandusky:
I will read the entire letter, thanks for the link. I am well aware that from the earliest church fathers, real presence is real to them. However, you are understanding it Materially; I do not think it should be understood that way in the ECFs, but spiritually. Material real presence/transsubstantiation is a later development concocted by…??

I reject it. :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
You completely misunderstand transubstanciation. Key word “substance.” Substance is NOT material - the material is the accidental. We are talking about the substance changing, but the accidental remaining.

Thousands of Christ’s disciples also rejected it, and then turned from Him, never to follow Him again.
 
E.E.N.S.:
No, I said a picture of your mother:
Click to expand...
You right. I read in haste. Forgive me.

But, the apostles are not talking about my mother. She did not shed her blood for those who would believe; neither is she God; she is my mother.

Why would you want to beat up my mother, anyway? 😃
 
E.E.N.S.:
You completely misunderstand transubstanciation. Key word “substance.” Substance is NOT material - the material is the accidental. We are talking about the substance changing, but the accidental remaining.
Click to expand...
I understand that. I say that He is not there physically in the Eucharist; you say that He is, call it substance or anything else.
40.png
E.E.N.S:
Thousands of Christ’s disciples also rejected it, and then turned from Him, never to follow Him again.
Click to expand...
Not to continue beating the horse, but I believe they left because they Misunderstood what He said.
 
Since Ignatius referred to the Eucharist as the “flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,” it seems to me to be a bit ridiculous to suppose that he was talking about a spiritual presence. No, Ignatius meant exactly what he said, which is that the substance of the bread is replaced by the flesh of the Lord.

In John 6, the word for “eat” which Christ used translates more literally as “gnaw” or “chew.” Now, people today use the word “eat” in a metaphor when we say something stupid: “I eat/ate my words.” But if we say “I gnaw/chew my words,” then the metaphor looses it’s meaning, since “gnaw” and “chew” evoke the physical act of eating.

Also, notice that when Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be “born again” to be saved, Nicodemus doesn’t understand (“How can I be born again?”) and Jesus explains himself. When Jesus tells the disciples that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, the disciples seem to misunderstand (“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”), yet Jesus does not say, “What I am saying means that you must believe in me to be saved.” Why not? Because the Jews had not misunderstood him at all. It is ridiculous to say that Jesus would have let many of the disciples leave him because they misunderstood a metaphor that he was using. Basically, that means that he let a good number of souls be lost because he was unwilling to explain a metaphor.

Finally, all of this business about baptism and the Eucharist being mere symbols just blows my mind. I ask the question: why? What’s the point of these mere symbols? If it has nothing to do with our salvation, why be baptised? If it has nothing to do with our salvation and/or spiritual health, why commemorate the Last Supper? It seems to me that Christ was more interested in things that really do something, rather than effect-less symbols.
 
40.png
sandusky:
I understand that. I say that He is not there physically in the Eucharist; you say that He is, call it substance or anything else…
Click to expand...
No no no, don’t take it lightly, the words do make a difference here. A person’s accidentals don’t make them who they are, but their substance does. It IS Christ’s Body and Blood, the accidentals are bread and wine.
40.png
sandusky:
Not to continue beating the horse, but I believe they left because they Misunderstood what He said.
Click to expand...
And that’s what I am trying to prevent you from doing - misunderstanding.

Oh, and I don’t want to do anything to your mother 😉 however I was trying to make a point.
 
Also, I cannot say strongly enough that the Mass does *not *purport to “re-crucify” Jesus. Since Paul says that he preaches Jesus, “and Him crucified,” does anybody accuse Paul of re-crucifying Christ? Also, in Revelation, John describes Jesus in heaven as a lamb “standing as if slain.” Doesn’t John know that Jesus is alive and well, completely restored?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top