Can We Talk ? (Part 2) - The Last Supper?

[RagamuffinBlues]

Welcome to ‘Can We Talk?’ (Part 2)

The Subject is : The Last Supper?

None of us can forget the corny book by Dan Brown, the subsequent books by Elaine Pagels and the endless line of ridiculous books by Bart Ehrmans. Books which seek to establish a voice for Gnosticism in our times.

So what exactly am I talking about when I say ‘The Last Supper’ ?

Do I mean that last meal, which Jesus had with his twelve ambassadors, who would later be empowered by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and spread the gospel, of justification by faith alone, that which was preached of old by Habakuk, and expressed in the words about Abraham who was a friend of God, or Enoch who walked with God, or Noah who found favour in the eyes of God, or the grace by which we stand in Christ Jesus. Nope.

No not that meal.

What I am talking about is…the meal we are having right now. You are reading, and as you read you are either eating/drinking (merely metaphors for understanding, which is understood as ‘light’ entering your whole being). This was one of the most prized blessings of the Reformation: The breaking of the false gospel of earning one’s salvation. For though repeatedly the Scriptures teach us that we cannot be born of our own endeavours, but only by the grace of God, through the Word and the Spirit, which too are synonymous ( we do believe in the Trinity, and the incarnation )

What I am talking about is the one meal we eat, ie. The Bread of Life, or the Water of the Word, or the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus (these are all the same).

Are you eating and drinking my words? No, I am not mocking. Jesus said that our words would also be eaten/drunk by others when He left (expediently) and sent His Spirit into our hearts, when He sent His Word into our hearts. These too are the same. For He does not tabernacle in houses made of stone, or relics, or statues, or pictures, but from the beginning he has sought to tabernacle in our hearts, and though His very nature is woven into the things we see, they have never, ever equalled, even in their total sum, or in any future fullness, for though we be complete in Him (The Lord Jesus Christ) our completeness is of Him.

What I am talking about is the Real, Real Presense of Christ, by His Spirit in our hearts.

Should none of the above resonate with you, in other words you have vomited out my words, and the spirit of or meaning, or reason (another way of saying “Logos” in John 1 ), then you have proved my point. You are spitting out the words of Life, as Jesus said,

**‘My words are spirit and they are life.’ **

There is no transubstantiation needed, no sacramental graces of any sort, for we are either saved by the singular grace of G_d in Christ Jesus, or we show that we do not understand the very essential matter of justification by faith alone, and seek to erect a visible substitute and thereby revoke the grace of G_d and make a mockery of the one sacrifice, for all who have real faith in the unseen G_d, that real faith in the unseen G_d which produces real works.

Sincerely,
RagamuffinBlues

 

[reggieM]

Should none of the above resonate with you, in other words you have vomited out my words, and the spirit of or meaning, or reason (another way of saying “Logos” in John 1 ), then you have proved my point. You are spitting out the words of Life, as Jesus said,

You’ve identified your own personal opinions with Christ’s Word. That’s not submitting oneself to God but misappropriating the authority that belongs to God alone, to oneself.

On what basis do you claim to have an infallible understanding of the Holy Scriptures?

 

[EphelDuath]

This was one of the most prized blessings of the Reformation: The breaking of the false gospel of earning one’s salvation.

I don’t know what Reformation you’re speaking of, but it certainly is not any I know of, given that the Catholic Church has never taught this.

What I am talking about is the Real, Real Presense of Christ, by His Spirit in our hearts.

And what about the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, of which St. Paul says, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord”? (1 Corinthians 11:27).

God bless.

 

[RagamuffinBlues]

You’ve identified your own personal opinions with Christ’s Word. That’s not submitting oneself to God but misappropriating the authority that belongs to God alone, to oneself.

On what basis do you claim to have an infallible understanding of the Holy Scriptures?

That was certainly not my intention, but I guess it does read that way.
My point was that if we are expressing ideas, that are in harmony with what Christ taught, and they convey the meaning he was endeavouring to convey, then it aught to be as believable.

I most certainly do not have an infallible understanding of the Christian sacred texts, but I do believe that what Jesus was saying was not literal eating and drinking, but rather something along the lines of partaking in his life, by eating his words, and drinking his essence.

 

[RagamuffinBlues]

I don’t know what Reformation you’re speaking of, but it certainly is not any I know of, given that the Catholic Church has never taught this.

Giving the Bible to the people in a language they could read and understand and decide for themselves, as to the meaning.

And what about the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, of which St. Paul says, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord”? (1 Corinthians 11:27).

One aught not to eat unworthily, but that could as easily mean that we should not eat and drink damnation, by doing so as if it was just another meal, when in fact it is a very special moment when we remember the Lord’s death 'til he comes, [and celebrate his victory over death, and his glorious resurrection, unto the highest seat in glory.]

 

[JonNC]

‘My words are spirit and they are life.’

There is no transubstantiation needed, no sacramental graces of any sort, for we are either saved by the singular grace of G_d in Christ Jesus, or we show that we do not understand the very essential matter of justification by faith alone, and seek to erect a visible substitute and thereby revoke the grace of G_d and make a mockery of the one sacrifice, for all who have real faith in the unseen G_d, that real faith in the unseen G_d which produces real works.

Just a couple of questions.

1. Who are you quoting in the quote box?
2. Are you under the impression that the Reformation was intended to reject sacramental grace?

Jon

 

[Carlan]

I most certainly do not have an infallible understanding of the Christian sacred texts, but I do believe that what Jesus was saying was not literal eating and drinking, but rather something along the lines of partaking in his life, by eating his words, and drinking his essence.

So to make the long of it short,you do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, His Body Blood Soul and Divinity truly present under the appearance of bread and wine. You are amongst those who turned away and could not believe what he was saying. Did you notice that Jesus did not call them back but turned to the others and asked if they would leave also.Peter answered him and they did not.
Lord we pray, We believe, help our unbelief.
Dear Father enlighten us all to the full Truth.
Peace, Carlan

 

[JonNC]

I most certainly do not have an infallible understanding of the Christian sacred texts**, but I do believe that what Jesus was saying was not literal eating and drinking**, but rather something along the lines of partaking in his life, by eating his words, and drinking his essence.

Matt. 26:26
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”

This sounds like literal eating and drinking to me. And it did to the reformers as well.
Augsburg Confession
*Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise. *

Jon

 

[Biedrik]

Just out of curiosity, but why do you mention Dan Brown and similar authors in the beginning of your post? It seems to have little relevance to me.

 

[ignatius777]

Welcome to ‘Can We Talk?’ (Part 2)

The Subject is : The Last Supper?

None of us can forget the corny book by Dan Brown, the subsequent books by Elaine Pagels and the endless line of ridiculous books by Bart Ehrmans. Books which seek to establish a voice for Gnosticism in our times.

So what exactly am I talking about when I say ‘The Last Supper’ ?

Do I mean that last meal, which Jesus had with his twelve ambassadors, who would later be empowered by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and spread the gospel, of justification by faith alone, that which was preached of old by Habakuk, and expressed in the words about Abraham who was a friend of God, or Enoch who walked with God, or Noah who found favour in the eyes of God, or the grace by which we stand in Christ Jesus. Nope.

No not that meal.

What I am talking about is…the meal we are having right now. You are reading, and as you read you are either eating/drinking (merely metaphors for understanding, which is understood as ‘light’ entering your whole being). This was one of the most prized blessings of the Reformation: The breaking of the false gospel of earning one’s salvation. For though repeatedly the Scriptures teach us that we cannot be born of our own endeavours, but only by the grace of God, through the Word and the Spirit, which too are synonymous ( we do believe in the Trinity, and the incarnation )

What I am talking about is the one meal we eat, ie. The Bread of Life, or the Water of the Word, or the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus (these are all the same).

Are you eating and drinking my words? No, I am not mocking. Jesus said that our words would also be eaten/drunk by others when He left (expediently) and sent His Spirit into our hearts, when He sent His Word into our hearts. These too are the same. For He does not tabernacle in houses made of stone, or relics, or statues, or pictures, but from the beginning he has sought to tabernacle in our hearts, and though His very nature is woven into the things we see, they have never, ever equalled, even in their total sum, or in any future fullness, for though we be complete in Him (The Lord Jesus Christ) our completeness is of Him.

What I am talking about is the Real, Real Presense of Christ, by His Spirit in our hearts.

Should none of the above resonate with you, in other words you have vomited out my words, and the spirit of or meaning, or reason (another way of saying “Logos” in John 1 ), then you have proved my point. You are spitting out the words of Life, as Jesus said,



Sincerely,
RagamuffinBlues

I dont even know where to begin with this one

 

[ignatius777]

Just out of curiosity, but why do you mention Dan Brown and similar authors in the beginning of your post? It seems to have little relevance to me.

Space filler

 

[EphelDuath]

Giving the Bible to the people in a language they could read and understand and decide for themselves, as to the meaning.

Why is “deciding the meaning for yourself” a good thing? That has spawned countless errors in history – just look at how many Protestant denominations there are. Would God be pleased knowing that so many of His children don’t know the truth because they have forsaken His Holy Catholic Church, which He promised infallibility (Matthew 16:18-19)?

One aught not to eat unworthily, but that could as easily mean that we should not eat and drink damnation, by doing so as if it was just another meal, when in fact it is a very special moment when we remember the Lord’s death 'til he comes, [and celebrate his victory over death, and his glorious resurrection, unto the highest seat in glory.]

No, actually, St. Paul is being quite literal in this passage. How exactly does one “drink damnation” unworthily?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello RagamuffinBlues; Your juxtaposition does not exist. The scriptures never teach “faith alone”, this is a man made theology invented from the protestant reformation of late.

What you failed to mention here, is that the last supper was not just the institution of the New and Everlasting Covenant in the body and blood (Eucharist) of Jesus Christ. This last supper event also fulfilled many of the old Covenant laws and rites. Such as the perpetual Passover which consisted of “Consuming” the flesh of the lamb, which guaranteed death would passover the people of God, "this passover perpetual law required “eating” literally. What you don’t reveal about the last supper is that Jesus is fulfilling the prophetic Psalms “Todah” meal with his friends. He completes these perpetual laws from the cross when Jesus states “it is finished”. There is no symbolism in what Jesus finished with his own body and blood. “Born again” Christians must consume the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, which is the true bread from heaven that promises eternal life. I don’t know about you? but I don’t believe in a symbolic eternal life.

This last supper has no symbolic relevance to a spirit or body and blood of Jesus. For one there is no such thing as a symbolic “spirit” taught from the scriptures. The Spirit is a real eternal person. Jesus never teaches one is to be born of “Word and Spirit”? You made this up or someone has decieved you. Jesus taught one must be "born of “Water and Spirit” (see John 3:3-7). The Water of the Spirit does not exist in sacred scripture, your juxtaposition here again is foreign to God’s Word. The Waters in the New Covenant reference “baptism” and it is the Spirit that makes us a new creation in Christ, that quenches the thirst (soul) of man who seeks his creator.

The Eucharist = Thanksgiving, is how Jesus taught his apostles to worship God in Spirit and Truth. It is not how we feel in our hearts, these feelings you relate to as the spirit are gifts of the spirit not the Spirit himself. It is by “My Spirit” says the Lord (Zech. 4:6) that the bread and wine become the body, blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Truth himself is Jesus. This is how we are to worship God, not with our feelings but with the only one sacrifice acceptable to the Lord.

No one can enter the throne room of God with a symbolic Jesus? No goes before the Father except through the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity. This can only be accomplished from this side of heaven through the Eucharist, Jesus true Presence in his body and blood. You cannot go before the Father in heaven with your feelings? You need Jesus who standing in heaven “as though slain” with his glorified wounded flesh. Jesus is not dead but Lives “Amen”. There is no such thing as a symbolic Jesus.

In summary how can one understand these spiritual realities revealed from the Spirit, if you failed the scripture teachings of “Water, Spirit and Truth”? Grasp these and the following scripture will make sense to you.

1Cor.2:12
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God.
13
And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms. 7
14
**Now the natural person 8 does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. **15
The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment 9 by anyone.
16
For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

To enter the holy of holies one must wear his wedding garment “baptism”, you cannot get in the wedding feast of lamb without your wedding garment. Only the victorious are given the hidden manna to eat. Before introducing these spiritual realities revealed in spiritual terms.

Peace be with you

RagamuffinBlues;6681952]Welcome to ‘Can We Talk?’ (Part 2)

The Subject is : The Last Supper?

So what exactly am I talking about when I say ‘The Last Supper’ ?

Do I mean that last meal, which Jesus had with his twelve ambassadors, who would later be empowered by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and spread the gospel, of justification by faith alone, that which was preached of old by Habakuk, and expressed in the words about Abraham who was a friend of God, or Enoch who walked with God, or Noah who found favour in the eyes of God, or the grace by which we stand in Christ Jesus. Nope.

No not that meal.

What I am talking about is…the meal we are having right now. You are reading, and as you read you are either eating/drinking (merely metaphors for understanding, which is understood as ‘light’ entering your whole being). This was one of the most prized blessings of the Reformation: The breaking of the false gospel of earning one’s salvation. For though repeatedly the Scriptures teach us that we cannot be born of our own endeavours, but only by the grace of God, through the Word and the Spirit, which too are synonymous ( we do believe in the Trinity, and the incarnation )

What I am talking about is the one meal we eat, ie. The Bread of Life, or the Water of the Word, or the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus (these are all the same).

 

[RagamuffinBlues]

Just a couple of questions.

1. Who are you quoting in the quote box?

Hi JonNC,

Here is the box quote, you are referring to:

‘My words are spirit and they are life.’

There is no transubstantiation needed, no sacramental graces of any sort, for we are either saved by the singular grace of G_d in Christ Jesus, or we show that we do not understand the very essential matter of justification by faith alone, and seek to erect a visible substitute and thereby revoke the grace of G_d and make a mockery of the one sacrifice, for all who have real faith in the unseen G_d, that real faith in the unseen G_d which produces real works.

Though it might not be mine, I think it quite possibly might be, because I am the only one I now that sometimes writes God, in that way. ( G_d )

1. Are you under the impression that the Reformation was intended to reject sacramental grace?

Jon,

Salvation is entirely in the court of G_d. G_d did it, not us. If we try to add a thing to that, it becomes = God and us did it, but seeing as most of us, were not even yet a twinkle in the eye of our parents, when Jesus died for our sin, was buried and rose again, and ascended … we have no right to such a claim. The sacrifice was a once for all, sealed-signed and delivered end to altar sacrifices, by one offering for all. ( Hebrews, is pretty clear about that fact. )
This however does not relieve us of the responsibility of doing what He said. I am not a Catholic, so I am not under the rules and regulations of it. However I am under Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit, and as such I am ‘working out my salvation with fear and tremblilng’ < that being the form of my religion.
As to the content, it is all about Jesus, and not about me.

RMB

 

[RagamuffinBlues]

I most certainly do not have an infallible understanding of the Christian sacred texts, but I do believe that what Jesus was saying was not literal eating and drinking, but rather something along the lines of partaking in his life, by eating his words, and drinking his essence.

So to make the long of it short,you do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, His Body Blood Soul and Divinity truly present under the appearance of bread and wine. You are amongst those who turned away and could not believe what he was saying. Did you notice that Jesus did not call them back but turned to the others and asked if they would leave also.Peter answered him and they did not.
Lord we pray, We believe, help our unbelief.
Dear Father enlighten us all to the full Truth.
Peace, Carlan

I know they walked away, but it was because they were blind, and the idea was completely weird. Jesus never meant for them to think they must drink his actual blood, or eat his actual body. He was referring to the atonement, and how the blood would be sprinkled in the heavenly temple and how through God’s grace, the life of God would be poured out in the person of the Holy Spirit, who we as one body in Christ drink of. Savvy? It is this eating and drinking, that he is referring to, not a literal eating of drinking. That is far to sensual to be the teaching of Jesus. He was very magical, mystical and fantastic in the way he explained thing. Even when he told them about the mystery of the cross, they did not know what on earth he was talking about…‘go to Jerusalem’ < what was Jesus crazy…die, rise again. They had no idea, that he was going to ‘lay down his life’ and seal a covenant of promise made to Abraham. They only ‘understood these things’ after he and the Father has sent forth the Spirit, into our hearts, the same who cries, ‘Abba, Father’ Savvy.

RMB

 

[RagamuffinBlues]

Matt. 26:26
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”

This sounds like literal eating and drinking to me. And it did to the reformers as well.
Augsburg Confession
*Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise. *

Jon

Oh, okay, a second comment. Hi Jon.

Sure, the ECF were struggling as we are struggling to understand the words of Jesus. I think that will be a problem, until one day, the Lord does in fact come. It’s a ‘space filler’ Yet, the bread and the wine, not matter how much we may pray for them to change, do not change into anything but bread and wine. It is common enough in mystical language to attempt to explain mysterious events, by referring to everyday idioms, metaphors, and well, …words and words and words… The danger with mandating anything like this, or turning it into a Church rule of worship, is that it kills the essential spirit of what Jesus was saying throughout the Christian sacred texts. Where to begin, his always the hard part, and I would agree that we begin with Jesus. After all, if he is the one who says, ‘come unto me, and believe’ or ‘you will never thirst again, or hunger again’ Those are extreme claims, and if we obey the words, then coming to him in faith and believing in him, is enough to satisfy us eternally, or not. What would be at fault them, would be our ability to see what is going on in the spiritual world. It is a common enough problem, throughout the entire body of Christian sacred text. One just has to read and be amazed, and how much is ‘seen in part, and prophecied in part’
So when we are around this table of the Lord, it is not that His presence is not there, but the access point to this, is not through eating and drinking, it is as with seeing and hearing, another thing all together, and to bring it back into the realm of the sensual is to break prayer, and sever the connection based on grace and faith.

RMB

 

[Carlan]

I know they walked away, but it was because they were blind, and the idea was completely weird. Jesus never meant for them to think they must drink his actual blood, or eat his actual body. He was referring to the atonement, and how the blood would be sprinkled in the heavenly temple and how through God’s grace, the life of God would be poured out in the person of the Holy Spirit, who we as one body in Christ drink of. Savvy? It is this eating and drinking, that he is referring to, not a literal eating of drinking. That is far to sensual to be the teaching of Jesus. He was very magical, mystical and fantastic in the way he explained thing. Even when he told them about the mystery of the cross, they did not know what on earth he was talking about…‘go to Jerusalem’ < what was Jesus crazy…die, rise again. They had no idea, that he was going to ‘lay down his life’ and seal a covenant of promise made to Abraham. They only ‘understood these things’ after he and the Father has sent forth the Spirit, into our hearts, the same who cries, ‘Abba, Father’ Savvy.

RM

I don’t “savvy” your interpretation. From whom do you receive authority of interpretation? Peace, Carlan

 

[RagamuffinBlues]

Originally Posted by **RagamuffinBlues **
Giving the Bible to the people in a language they could read and understand and decide for themselves, as to the meaning.

Why is “deciding the meaning for yourself” a good thing? That has spawned countless errors in history – just look at how many Protestant denominations there are. Would God be pleased knowing that so many of His children don’t know the truth because they have forsaken His Holy Catholic Church, which He promised infallibility (Matthew 16:18-19)?

It’s very, very important to think for ourselves, for what sort of father would entrap his child’s mind. The prodigal needs to be at liberty to leave and return to the pathway. It does not worry me that there are so many different denominations, and I don’t believe it worries God. What I do think worries God, is when a group of people, attempt to make out that their Church is the authentic, the only, the right one, implying that everyone else is wrong. This has caused great division, and well, I am not going to wheel out the past, but there is enough to make a solid point about the horrors of Christian 101 Wars. They were a mockery to the name we name, and a continual wound in the bride of Christ. You have no idea, how many times, I have had to roll over because of Catholic and Protestant, and the many denominations you refer to, who have bludgeoned, murdered, persecuted, and in short NOT lived up to the Lord’s words, for they would not take them in ( ingest them, drink them) They took the words of leaders, and their rules and regulations, instead of the Lord God, and His Word, and Spirit. They broke the water pots, they broke the one loaf of which we are a part, and now are trying to seam it together with their own words. I am trying to build a bridge here, but look how quickly it falls to pieces. Oh, how the Church needs Jesus?

Originally Posted by **RagamuffinBlues **
One aught not to eat unworthily, but that could as easily mean that we should not eat and drink damnation, by doing so as if it was just another meal, when in fact it is a very special moment when we remember the Lord’s death 'til he comes, [and celebrate his victory over death, and his glorious resurrection, unto the highest seat in glory.]

No, actually, St. Paul is being quite literal in this passage. How exactly does one “drink damnation” unworthily?

I might be shy a few on the facts, but if I remember correctly, the damnation was because they were stuffing themselves with food, and behaving like animals. (sensual) A feast has been set before us, but we need eyes, and ears, to hear and see, and eat and drink our Lord. To miss the Lord’s Supper < where they ate there last meal together, and to miss the obvious pointing of the Spirit of God to the cross, the death for our sins, and the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, is to miss the point, and to focus on the sensual only. This would be to drink damnation, and to partake unworthily, though I could think of quite a few other practical reasons. … unconfessed sin, might be a start.

FNB

 

[RagamuffinBlues]

Hello RagamuffinBlues; Your juxtaposition does not exist. The scriptures never teach “faith alone”, this is a man made theology invented from the protestant reformation of late.

Ouch! I knew I’d regret writing my 2nd post the way I did. I too do not believe in faith alone, but I do believe in grace alone, and by that I do not mean graces alone, (with respect to ‘SALVATION’), but by the single act of grace established on the cross 2000 years ago, when Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose again, and ascended to the throne, where he reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords’. Amen.

Please note: ‘born of our own endeavours (etecetera)…’ < especially as I am not talking about sanctification, but salvation, as in our birth, being born of the Word and the Spirit, and continuing to grow as we pray and study and walk out our faith in very obvious and deliberate ways. I do not reject Romans or James, and stand firmly upon the solid ROCK of our confession, THE CORNERSTONE.

To enter the holy of holies one must wear his wedding garment “baptism”

I strongly disagree with you.
To put the ordinances before the completed work of Christ, is to make a new doctrine. I cannot submit to such a thing, having already submitted myself first to Christ, and then the ordinances of the Church, and not the other way round.

Peace be with you

Perhaps a little to soon with the blessing. It seems you administered the final rights.

RMB

 

[RagamuffinBlues]

FNB

:bigyikes: I abbreviated my alias to read First National Bank.