Protestants: do you ever wish the Eucharist was more than just a symbol to you?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HeWillProvide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HeWillProvide

Guest
Does the idea of the Eucharist actually being Jesus Christ himself appealing to you? Or not?
 
It already is appealing to me - because it already is the Body and Blood of Christ.

O+
 
We will disagree on that, GodisGracious - as we both know.

This, as most posts that start out “Protestants…” is a strawman post.
 
HeWillProvide said:
Does the idea of the Eucharist actually being Jesus Christ himself appealing to you? Or not?
Click to expand...
Let me guess, every time I see a ‘gate’ I should partake because the gate mystically transforms into Jesus? Jesus is the Gate you know.

Every time I drink water, I should remember that Jesus said “I am Living water”, so Jesus becomes water?..shall I go on, ?

Which verses are analogs/metaphors? Which are literal? How do you differentiate?
Is the Genesis literal? Did Jonah get swallowed by a whale?

Where do you/how do you decide when you will call something literal vs metaphor?

Why does Rome declare Jonah a metaphor, or Jesus calling Himself ‘Living Water’ a metaphor, yet all of a sudden when He says “I am the Bread of Life” that is literal?? Please explain the hermaneutical logic here? Is there any, or is this ‘tradition’?

Remember this phrase clearly "Do this in rememberance of me.
It is awesome to go back and learn about the Passover, which was a foreshadowing of what was to come. Jesus explains the Passover to his Apostles at the Last Supper, and tells them to continue this ordinance "in rememberance of me". This was another prophecy of what was to come, and what will be. That is an awesome sign of Gods presence. I am sure there is a real “means of Grace” in this Blessed Sacrement, but to illogically, and with poor exegesis/hermaneutics declare that this is a literal statement when it is clearly written in an literary style consistent with his metaphorical language, is just silly.

Sorry in advance if this is offensive. I hope its not.
 
twohumble said:
Let me guess, every time I see a ‘gate’ I should partake because the gate mystically transforms into Jesus? Jesus is the Gate you know.

Every time I drink water, I should remember that Jesus said “I am Living water”, so Jesus becomes water?..shall I go on, ?

Which verses are analogs/metaphors? Which are literal? How do you differentiate?
Is the Genesis literal? Did Jonah get swallowed by a whale?

Where do you/how do you decide when you will call something literal vs metaphor?

Why does Rome declare Jonah a metaphor, or Jesus calling Himself ‘Living Water’ a metaphor, yet all of a sudden when He says “I am the Bread of Life” that is literal?? Please explain the hermaneutical logic here? Is there any, or is this ‘tradition’?

Remember this phrase clearly "Do this in rememberance of me.
It is awesome to go back and learn about the Passover, which was a foreshadowing of what was to come. Jesus explains the Passover to his Apostles at the Last Supper, and tells them to continue this ordinance "in rememberance of me". This was another prophecy of what was to come, and what will be. That is an awesome sign of Gods presence. I am sure there is a real “means of Grace” in this Blessed Sacrement, but to illogically, and with poor exegesis/hermaneutics declare that this is a literal statement when it is clearly written in an literary style consistent with his metaphorical language, is just silly.

Sorry in advance if this is offensive. I hope its not.
Click to expand...
In the metaphors, Christ says what he is (like). In the Eucharist, He tells us what the bread and wine are. In the instances you site, He is creating an anology, “I am the gate”.
Christ never said, “This gate is my body”. Or, “this water is my blood”.

At the Last Supper, however, He puts His hands on the bread and says, “This is my body”. It is a declaration in a literal sense. This is me! I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one at the Last Supper who, after the Lord says, This is my body", says “No it’s not, Lord. It is just a symbol.”

He never put His hands on a gate and said, “This (gate) is my body”.

Jon
 
I’m wondering (seriously) what the Catholic explanation is regarding the fact that Jesus was there, and yet the bread and wine were supposed to be literally his broken body and spilled blood. I’m sure I’m not the first person in nearly two millenia to ask that, but it seems like a relevant question.

The other question I would like to ask is that a spiritual presence is just as literal as a physical presence, is it not?
 
JonNC said:
In the metaphors, Christ says what he is (like). In the Eucharist, He tells us what the bread and wine are. In the instances you site, He is creating an anology, “I am the gate”.
Christ never said, “This gate is my body”. Or, “this water is my blood”.

At the Last Supper, however, He puts His hands on the bread and says, “This is my body”. It is a declaration in a literal sense. This is me! I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one at the Last Supper who, after the Lord says, This is my body", says “No it’s not, Lord. It is just a symbol.”

He never put His hands on a gate and said, “This (gate) is my body”.

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon, let me start by saying “I appreciate your logic, and I think its well argued” I mean this very positively so thank you for your thoughtful response. I hope I come off with the same courtesy.

We must go back to what He is celebrating. “The Passover”. This is very telling in regard to why He says “This is my body”. He is picking up the 2nd of 3 loaves of unlevened bread. This piece is broken and a the broken piece is hidden away after it’s wrapped in linen. This piece is called the ‘afikomen’, which literally means “One who comes after”. The symbolism is unmistakable, given that this afikomen is found and unwrapped at the end of the meal and is considered a ‘desert’ or treat in the jewish tradition. Clearly, as Christians we know this is the second coming.

The fact that Jesus picks up the very loaf that symbolized the 2nd person of the Trinity for 2000 years before He came explains why He put His hand on it and said ‘This is My body’. This 2nd loaf of 3 loaves present at the last supper clearly and perpetually represented Jesus’s body which was about to be broken for us.

Just as the Cup of Salvation, which was only one of the cups on the table at this celebration (Elijah’s cup and others are also there), the Cup of Salvation is what He picks up at the Last Supper and again He explains what this 2000 yr old right represents: “This is my Blood”.

That is why He puts His hands on the bread and wine, He is showing them visibly what these 2000 yr old symbols represent. These have been symbols given to the Jews for 2000 years prior, and all along they represented Jesus and were prophetic in regard to His coming and what He would do when He came. Namely, His body would be broken, His blood would be shed. This is why the Jews baked 3 loaves (Trinitarian verse in Exodus), Jesus takes HIS loaf, and tells them “This always reprented me”.

In other words, Jesus was teaching the 2000 yr old message of the Passover to the Jews,(they never did seem to get it, sorta as bad as us hu?).

This does not in any way mean that they are ‘less symbolic’ and ‘more literal’ just because he laid hands on them. He did so to explain a 2000 yr old meal that was always symbolic and prophetic in regard to His coming and His purpose. Notice something telling: at the last supper which was a passover celebration which should have had a lamb sacrifice "there was no lamb. Why? Jesus was the Lamb. Again, He was teaching his Apostles what this great sign meant for the last 2000 yrs that they celebrated it.

I hope this helps in some measure.
 
O.S.Luke said:
It already is appealing to me - because it already is the Body and Blood of Christ.

O+
Click to expand...
I thought Protestants didn’t believe it really is Jesus but that it is instead a representation. You are a Protestant who believes it truly IS Jesus?
 
ckempston said:
I’m wondering (seriously) what the Catholic explanation is regarding the fact that Jesus was there, and yet the bread and wine were supposed to be literally his broken body and spilled blood. I’m sure I’m not the first person in nearly two millenia to ask that, but it seems like a relevant question…

The other question I would like to ask is that a spiritual presence is just as literal as a physical presence, is it not?
Click to expand...
I think all miracles Jesus performed could be questioned. How do you fill baskets with leftover fish and loaves when you only have a couple of each?, etc

So do Protestants believe there is a “spiritual” presence in the Eucharist? If so, what is the difference between that and the “physical”? Like, the bread remains bread but God is there, in the church?
 
I just went back to the catholic church and now i’m back to Protestant and i learned what Jesus said was more important then anything,LOVE, LOVE one and other as i have Loved you! Where there is LOVE there is unity and there is Jesus present. There is alot more to it then just breaking of bread because as you said it was done before he came, when we do it in rememberence of him we Remember all he has done for us, not just his presence,but his LOVE, for we are empty vessels in old flasks without Love.And the jews knew you can’t put new wine in old flasks!
 
How exactly do Protestants view the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Depends on the believer. Most will affirm the Real Presence. Those who deny it are in the minority.

God bless you
 
Notice something telling: at the last supper which was a passover celebration which should have had a lamb sacrifice "there was no lamb. Why? Jesus was the Lamb. Again, He was teaching his Apostles what this great sign meant for the last 2000 yrs that they celebrated it.
Click to expand...
Question: was the lamb literally eaten at passover, or just symbolically eaten?

Jesus told us that His flesh was food indeed, and that His blood was drink indeed. I believe Him.

God bless you
 
JonNC said:
At the Last Supper, however, He puts His hands on the bread and says, “This is my body”. It is a declaration in a literal sense. This is me! I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one at the Last Supper who, after the Lord says, This is my body", says “No it’s not, Lord. It is just a symbol.”

He never put His hands on a gate and said, “This (gate) is my body”.

Jon
Click to expand...
Yes HE puts His hands on the bread and states this is my body inferring that the bread represents Christ (Himself) as the final sacrificial lamb. The entire passover was/is symbolic. In taking the cup after the meal Christ was taking the 3rd cup of redemption and declaring that it was now the new covenant which was symbolized by the cup in the blood of Christ instead of the blood of the lambs from the exodus. Christ never stated this is a cup of my blood. The 3rd cup of redemption used in the passover was red wine mixed with warm water to SYMBOLIZE the blood of the lambs slain prior to the exodus. The Jews never considered it literal blood consecrated by the Rabbi. That’s why Jesus states HE will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until HE drinks it new in HIS Father’s Kingdom. Christ understood the cup to still contain the fruit of the vine which is a metaphor for wine after HE supposedly consecrates it to be HIS literal blood.

An old Jewish custom prior to marriage was for the groom to present his bride to be a cup of red wine. The groom would state this is a cup of my blood which was a declaration of intent to marry. The bride to be would either accept his proposal and drink from the cup or set it down which signified a rejection of the contract to marry. This custom dates back to the time of Christ which I find quite interesting. When we partake in the cup we accept Christ’s proposal to become his bride which is the church.

Let me ask you this Jon. The Jerusalem council dispatched a letter to the churches clarifying the matter on circumcision. In the letter the Apostles also stated that they should refrain from sexual morality, from food offered to idols and from eating/drinking blood. We both know the pagans would partake in the blood offered to their GOD so they could partake in it’s divinity. If the Apostles believed Christ spoke literally when HE uttered the words this is my body and hence were teaching consecration, why didn’t they clarify this in the letter. The churches receive a letter from the Apostles telling them not to eat blood and yet we are supposed to believe that they turned right around and taught that they were in fact eating blood after consecration. So why doesn’t the letter from the council state the exception of refraining from eating blood EXCEPT when partaking in the cup which after consecration supposedly is the Lord’s literal blood???

PEACE
 
Roman_Catholic said:
Question: was the lamb literally eaten at passover, or just symbolically eaten?

Jesus told us that His flesh was food indeed, and that His blood was drink indeed. I believe Him.

God bless you
Click to expand...
Was the lambs blood drunk?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top