Communion is just a symbol!

[Darryl_B]

Hi D,

The remembrance had a purpose, which was for allowance into the kingdom due to the thief’s expression of desire and faith. Jesus said what the purpose was, “you will be with me in Paradise”. Nothing about transubstantiating him into paradise.

The "Supper’’ is for remembrance of Calvary and of His future coming/return.

Blessings

The point is remembrance is not just a recollect but a reconnect.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

And James was in charge of the council.

That they all agreed with Peter doesn’t mean they were required to, or somehow knew he was supreme among them, particularly if the listened to Paul’s rebuke of him, or Christ’s admonition against setting up one above the others.

Jon

Compare this:
7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

With this:
13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’**—
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

Peter ultimately stated a binding doctrine. James merely proposed a way to conform to that doctrine. Ultimately, the law that stated meat of strangled animals was to be abstained from was not really followed in Christianity.

And look what happened with the Peter vs. Paul argument. It seemed pretty clear that everyone followed this course of action because Peter started doing it. And did Paul state, “And I won the argument?” Paul doesn’t even state even once that he considers Peter not superior to him, rather it is because of Peter’s position that Paul rebuked Peter.**

 

[JonNC]

7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Amen. No one disputes his leadership among them. But leadership isn’t supremacy

Jon

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Amen. No one disputes his leadership among them. But leadership isn’t supremacy

Jon

Read the rest of my post.

 

[Darryl_B]

Amen. No one disputes his leadership among them. But leadership isn’t supremacy

Jon

Leadership is primacy. Supremacy means better than and is obviously a means of contention that doesn’t really exist. If one views the primacy as a supremacy it will of course lead to a disagreement, with the words “What makes you better than me”, and then follow someone else and take their name.

 

[benhur]

Not so.

In the Book of Acts, we can easily see that whatever Peter proposed was immediately accepted. So the Bible does give examples of the supremacy of Peter.

Hi JB,

Well , I would say no. The bible gives examples of Peter proposing and others concurring or accepting as you say. Supremacy is your word but not in biblical texts…

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The point is remembrance is not just a recollect but a reconnect.

Hi D,

I would say so. That is what we discuss. Just how do we “reconnect”? Is it trans or con or spiritual, symbolic etc…

Bringing the Lord back into the symbols is beyond remembrance. it is bringing Him back physically though in symbols. One needs not trans to fully remember the Lord in His fullness of being and the sealing of the new covenant.

Blessings

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi D,

I would say so. That is what we discuss. Just how do we “reconnect”? Is it trans or con or spiritual, symbolic etc…

Bringing the Lord back into the symbols is beyond remembrance. it is bringing Him back physically though in symbols. One needs not trans to fully remember the Lord in His fullness of being, and the sealing of the new covenant.

Blessings

I don’t need symbols to remember in the way you say. I don’t even need to go to Church to remember in that respect. I am not that forgetful.

 

[benhur]

I don’t need symbols to remember in the way you say. I don’t even need to go to Church to remember in that respect. I am not that forgetful.

Hi D,

I beg to differ.

We do a lot of things over and over again to be filled with His Word, His Spirit, even renewed daily. Not sure it is because of "forgetfulness, but of the nature of our race and flesh against spirit.

The Jews did not need to make feasts to remember their history , but they indeed were instituted.

Blesings

PS- Some would say they do not need to eat His flesh with “teeth and bellies” but with a faithful believing and spiritual “gnawing”.

 

[benhur]

Peter ultimately stated a binding doctrine. James merely proposed a way to conform to that doctrine. Ultimately, the law that stated meat of strangled animals was to be abstained from was not really followed in Christianity.

Hi JB,

Yes many have used this to show not unity in conformity but in diversity. It also challenges councils a bit, even any deputized authority beyond apostleship that all 12 had.

As you correctly state , Paul went beyond what was decreed, though not in spirit (of freedom). It set up two practices within Christianity, a type of Judaism , and one Gentile freedom. I think it even exists today.

And look what happened with the Peter vs. Paul argument. It seemed pretty clear that everyone followed this course of action because Peter started doing it. And did Paul state, “And I won the argument?” Paul doesn’t even state even once that he considers Peter not superior to him, rather it is because of Peter’s position that Paul rebuked Peter

We part ways here on historical extrapolations. Paul did win “his” argument. Actually both Peter and Paul had been told of God separately what was clean, and how to deal with Gentiles.

Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy more so than his position. But yes Paul was led to have the Peter and the other Jerusalem leaders (James) to force *their *Judaizers to get with the program (already implied by God and practiced by mostly Paul, and Peter with Cornelius.)

Blessings

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi D,

I beg to differ.

We do a lot of things over and over again to be filled with His Word, His Spirit, even renewed daily. Not sure it is because of "forgetfulness, but of the nature of our race and flesh against spirit.

The Jews did not need to make feasts to remember their history , but they indeed were instituted.

These feasts were instituted with the purpose of being a Holy Convocation not just to not forget something.

PS- Some would say they do not need to eat His flesh with “teeth and bellies” but with a faithful believing and spiritual “gnawing”.

What does that even mean in real terms. It sounds purely poetic than practice. It is like “digesting” the Word kind of sounding.

 

[benhur]

These feasts were instituted with the purpose of being a Holy Convocation not just to not forget something.

Hi D,

Agree and was going to put in the word “corporate”. Like Christmas is both “community” yet even down to the individual family as to its celebrating. So is Passover and “communion”.

You seem to be bulldoggish on not “forgetting” as the only reason for my “remembrance”.

Remembrance is to bring something to the “forefront”. Something in continual background/foundation is not forgotten. We can not focus on all foundational things at once or at the same time. Hence seems reasonable to set time and ceremonies aside and apart say for the Incarnation, and for Calvary and for the Resurrection etc., etc…

What does that even mean in real terms. It sounds purely poetic than practice. It is like “digesting” the Word kind of sounding

What, figures of speech, metaphors, parables? Heaven forbid??? …“Chew on that!”

Sounds as “poetic” as the Greek type explanation of transubstantiation?

Actually I think it is Augustinian , the term of “teeth and bellies” and “eating by faith”.

Blessings.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course i do not believe this, but I want to put on my fundamentalist protestant hat and play objector for this thread.

My family and friends think it is just symbolic because…He who is Truth said…do this in REMEMBRANCE of me. So the idea is that it’s just like a memorial of sorts with no spiritual significance.

In the book of John, Jesus spoke symbolically and refers to Himself as a gate in John 10:9, but Catholics don’t take him literally there, so why do you take him literal 4 chapters earlier when he said " For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." John 6:55

Clearly, Jesus is speaking symbolically there as well. Once again the Catholic Church got it wrong!!!

Having a symbolic communion is the epitome of NOT being a hard saying.

Rather, t’s a very, soft, squishy, easy to accept saying, eh?

And yet, we see in John 6 that when Jesus told his disciples to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, the disciples murmured among themselves that this was a “hard saying”.

Not so much if it was symoblic, though, right?

 

[benhur]

Having a symbolic communion is the epitome of NOT being a hard saying.

Rather, t’s a very, soft, squishy, easy to accept saying, eh?

And yet, we see in John 6 that when Jesus told his disciples to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, the disciples murmured among themselves that this was a “hard saying”.

Not so much if it was symoblic, though, right?

Oh my gosh! Look who is here. Long time no see PR. And I was just signing off.

I will only briefly say the Lord’s death and Ascension was a hard saying not matter how presented to His close followers of almost three years.

Blessings PR

And my reply saving the looking up of “epitome” for another day, Lord willing

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi D,

Agree and was going to put in the word “corporate”. Like Christmas is both “community” yet even down to the individual family as to its celebrating. So is Passover and “communion”.

They are days in which the people raise towards God, and the Supernatural touches the Natural. Heaven and Earth meet what is happening on earth is happening in Heaven, a re-presentation of a propitiatory sacrifice.

Actually I think it is Augustinian , the term of “teeth and bellies” and “eating by faith”.

I can agree with teeth and bellies and eating by faith. Did he say spiritual gnawing?

 

[Darryl_B]

Read the rest of my post.

I do agree with you about Peter’s supremacy. But the word has actually changed meaning thanks to American philosophers (not that there really are any American philosophers of note), in many English speaking countries “supremacy” does not instil that stigma of better than, though that will eventually change. The word is not wrong. The understanding of the word is wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh my gosh! Look who is here. Long time no see PR. And I was just signing off.

I will only briefly say the Lord’s death and Ascension was a hard saying not matter how presented to His close followers of almost three years.

This, friend, is a nonsequitur.

Whether or not those things are “hard sayings” is irrelevant to this discussion.

Please answer this question: when the disciples murmured among themselves “This is a hard saying…” (and left him because of it )…what was the “this” they were referencing?

I am wholly expecting a direct answer to my question, friend. It’s a pretty easy one. And if you won’t directly answer it, that will be quite telling…that is, you know the answer but refuse to state it, because of the repercussion.

 

[JonNC]

Leadership is primacy. Supremacy means better than and is obviously a means of contention that doesn’t really exist. If one views the primacy as a supremacy it will of course lead to a disagreement, with the words “What makes you better than me”, and then follow someone else and take their name.

Okay. Then the events of Acts indicate a primacy but in no way imply universal jurisdiction

Jon

 

[benhur]

They are days in which the people raise towards God, and the Supernatural touches the Natural. Heaven and Earth meet what is happening on earth is happening in Heaven, a re-presentation of a propitiatory sacrifice.

 

[benhur]

Whether or not those things are “hard sayings” is irrelevant to this discussion

Hi PR,

His death and ascension are totally relevant to the discourse. One is implied and the other explicitly mentioned. The discourse is a package. Your question is the culmination of 60 preceding verses.

The cross was and is still the biggest stumbling block for Jews.

One can not separate the bloody death of the Messiah from “eating and drinking His flesh”

The eagle/hawk have quite an ability to micro focus on their prey, but not so good on the bigger picture, and fly smack into the truck driving in between.

am wholly expecting a direct answer to my question, friend. It’s a pretty easy one

I answered above. The eating and drinking of His blood was the culmination. They understood it in the context of the previous 60 verses (not a micro transubstantiation context), but disbelieved and found it “absurd”.

that will be quite telling

the micro view is also quite telling.

Blessings