The Last Supper

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zahir
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zahir

Guest
Is the Last Supper a symbol or did Jesus really consecrate the bread and wine to the body and blood before he died for us?

Zahir
 
We believe that Christ actually consecrated and transubstantiated the bread. Remember, he blessed and broke the bread and said “Take this all of you and eat it, for this is my body. Do this in memory of me,” and later blessed the cup of wine, saying “Take this all of you and drink from it, for this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.”

I was talking over with my RCIA instructor about the Bread of Life discourse (Jn 6:29-60, roughly), whioch also is helpful. While not specifically the Last Supper (it actually comes after the multiplication of the loaves and fishes), it leaves no illusion that any bread we eat or wine we drink in Jesus’ name at the Eucharist IS his body and blood.
 
John 6: 53-56
"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

Matthew 26: 26-28
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

When talking to the crowds in John’s Gospel, Jesus said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. At the Last Supper he says that the bread is his body and the wine is his blood, and that we are to eat and drink it.

I think it’s pretty obvious. 👍
 
Zahir said:
Is the Last Supper a symbol or did Jesus really consecrate the bread and wine to the body and blood before he died for us?

Zahir
Click to expand...
well there are two possibilities, either He really did it and really gave the apostles his own Body and Blood under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine, or, he flat out lied. To deny the Eucharist is to call Christ a liar when he spoke to the crowds in the sermons related in John 6, in all his other teaching on the Eucharist, and particularly at the Last Supper.
 
Zahir said:
Is the Last Supper a symbol or did Jesus really consecrate the bread and wine to the body and blood before he died for us?

Zahir
Click to expand...
I asume you are asking that as he had not been crucified yet did in this case it become his Body and Blood. According to the Church, yes it did.

For example Mark 14:24 And he said to them: This is my **blood **of the new covenant, which **will be shed **for many. (DRV)
 
I agree with Canto. Jesus instituted the Eucharist before his actual death. He can do this. He is God.

Time is part of our world. In the world of God and the angels, there is just - present.

It is what some call “the eternal now.”
 
Zahir said:
Is the Last Supper a symbol or did Jesus really consecrate the bread and wine to the body and blood before he died for us?

Zahir
Click to expand...
26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Can anyone come up with a different definition for is? In the context that it is used? I can not. IS is is… Christ said it is so it is.
 
If you read the ECF to see what the early church believed there can be no doubt what they believed and they were willing to die for that belief. It truly is the Body and Blood of our Lord just as He said it was.
 
"Martin Luther himself confirms that the early Church unanimously taught the Real Presence: 'of all fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as ‘it is simply bread and wine’ or ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’…Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side" Luther’s Works (St Louis Mo: Concordia Publishing 1961), vol 37, 54.

Fr Frank Chacon & Jim Burnam, in their Beginning Apologetics 1, p. 9,

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
Thanks guys for your responses. I shared those responses with him and this with what he answered. Please share with me your opinion, comments, and suggestions.

His response:

Look at the scripture again “Take and eat; this is my body.” was it his body? As in the present tense? Or is the translation should say “this means my body”?

Now look at the other part "Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Look at it close. “this is my blood” (present tense)
But then it changes to future tense “which will be shed on behalf”.

It cannot be redeption before the fact!

The scripture is better understood as when the Jews would bring a real lamb to the temple. It was a “representation” of the future sacrifice of the Messiah, but not the real Lamb of God.

Therefore the scripture is better understood in a normalized translation “this means or represents my body” and “this means or represents my blood” but not that it would transubstantiate to become the real flesh and blood of the Messiah.

The bread and wine was to seal a New Covenant and destroy the Mosaic Covenant. The Covenant that Yahweh did with Israel in the Mount Sinai. The New Covenant was sealed “after” the death and resurection of Christ, not before. That was the only way other people that were non-Jews could become Spiritiual Jews and be part of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Christ never consecrated the bread and wine, he simply used it to illustrate that when a person “eats and drinks” from his "flesh and “blood” he/she has by the power of the New Covenant can get rid of the sin that came from the original sin that came from “eating from the tree of knowledge” that was forbiden by God. Non of us really literally ate from the “tree of knowledge” that Adam and Eve ate from. But we do have and feel the “effects” of that sin. We were all born in that sin.

So we don’t literally “eat” Christ the Lamb of God, but we can benefit from the “effects” of he New Covenant by understanding the “meaning” of what represents the “eating and drinking” of his flesh and blood of Christ.

Just like being “born again by water and spirit” doesn’t mean we literally go back to our mothers’ wombs. But that we become New in our person from within and shed away the old personality that conforms to the sin that plagues us.

So unless “we eat” and “drink” meaning, we accept Him in our entire being (needs longer explanation) we can not have eternal life.

So what do you guys think?
Zahir
 
Zahir said:
Thanks guys for your responses. I shared those responses with him and this with what he answered. Please share with me your opinion, comments, and suggestions.

His response:

Look at the scripture again “Take and eat; this is my body.” was it his body? As in the present tense? Or is the translation should say “this means my body”?

Now look at the other part "Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Look at it close. “this is my blood” (present tense)
But then it changes to future tense “which will be shed on behalf”.

It cannot be redeption before the fact!

The scripture is better understood as when the Jews would bring a real lamb to the temple. It was a “representation” of the future sacrifice of the Messiah, but not the real Lamb of God.

Therefore the scripture is better understood in a normalized translation “this means or represents my body” and “this means or represents my blood” but not that it would transubstantiate to become the real flesh and blood of the Messiah.

The bread and wine was to seal a New Covenant and destroy the Mosaic Covenant. The Covenant that Yahweh did with Israel in the Mount Sinai. The New Covenant was sealed “after” the death and resurection of Christ, not before. That was the only way other people that were non-Jews could become Spiritiual Jews and be part of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Christ never consecrated the bread and wine, he simply used it to illustrate that when a person “eats and drinks” from his "flesh and “blood” he/she has by the power of the New Covenant can get rid of the sin that came from the original sin that came from “eating from the tree of knowledge” that was forbiden by God. Non of us really literally ate from the “tree of knowledge” that Adam and Eve ate from. But we do have and feel the “effects” of that sin. We were all born in that sin.

So we don’t literally “eat” Christ the Lamb of God, but we can benefit from the “effects” of he New Covenant by understanding the “meaning” of what represents the “eating and drinking” of his flesh and blood of Christ.

Just like being “born again by water and spirit” doesn’t mean we literally go back to our mothers’ wombs. But that we become New in our person from within and shed away the old personality that conforms to the sin that plagues us.

So unless “we eat” and “drink” meaning, we accept Him in our entire being (needs longer explanation) we can not have eternal life.

So what do you guys think?
Zahir
Click to expand...
Makes perfect sense … EXCEPT that He celebrated the Eucharist again, on the road to Emmaus. He took real, not metaphorical, bread, blessed it (‘consecrated’ means blessed so He certainly DID consecrate at the Last Supper!) and broke it with His disciples. And the disciples recognised Him at that moment - it’s no coincidence that they recognised Him in the doing of what He commanded them to also do.

Of course more tellingly there’s the fact that the Apostles, the ones who were there with Him and knew perfectly well what He meant by His words, met regularly to break the bread and share the cup. Not in any merely symbolic sense, but really and literally. THEY knew He wasn’t just talking in metaphors.

In fact they placed so much importance on the respect due to the physical elements of the Eucharist that Paul commanded them not to eat or drink unworthily, lest by doing so they eat and drink to their own condemnation and be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Note that - guilty of the Body and Blood! Not guilty of misusing SYMBOLS of Christ, but ACTUALLY guilty of the Body and Blood - which is only possible if the Body and Blood are REALLY there and capable of abuse!
 
Zahir said:
Thanks guys for your responses. I shared those responses with him and this with what he answered. Please share with me your opinion, comments, and suggestions.

His response:

Look at the scripture again “Take and eat; this is my body.” was it his body? As in the present tense? Or is the translation should say “this means my body”?

Now look at the other part "Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

no where in the bible does Jesus emphasize anything more than in John 6 about the need to eat His body and drink His blood to have life within you.

Look at it close. “this is my blood” (present tense)
But then it changes to future tense “which will be shed on behalf”.
Jesus is God and God is outside of time and space so yes he can do something right now and in the future at the same time He can actually do something in the past also at the same time so yes it could be the offering of the Lamb (Himself) to the Father as being a part of his passion. Christ passion started at the Last Supper (the passover) and Jesus never closed the Passover until He finished it on the cross. That was the purpose of the last wine while He was on the cross and His saying “It is finished”

It cannot be redeption before the fact!

The scripture is better understood as when the Jews would bring a real lamb to the temple. It was a “representation” of the future sacrifice of the Messiah, but not the real Lamb of God.

Therefore the scripture is better understood in a normalized translation “this means or represents my body” and “this means or represents my blood” but not that it would transubstantiate to become the real flesh and blood of the Messiah.

Jesus explaining this a year ealier said Truly, truly 3X to emphasis you must eat and drink and truly believe what you are eating and drinking. This is what the early chruch taught

The bread and wine was to seal a New Covenant and destroy the Mosaic Covenant. The Covenant that Yahweh did with Israel in the Mount Sinai. The New Covenant was sealed “after” the death and resurection of Christ, not before. That was the only way other people that were non-Jews could become Spiritiual Jews and be part of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Christ never consecrated the bread and wine, he simply used it to illustrate that when a person “eats and drinks” from his "flesh and “blood” he/she has by the power of the New Covenant can get rid of the sin that came from the original sin that came from “eating from the tree of knowledge” that was forbiden by God. Non of us really literally ate from the “tree of knowledge” that Adam and Eve ate from. But we do have and feel the “effects” of that sin. We were all born in that sin.

So we don’t literally “eat” Christ the Lamb of God, but we can benefit from the “effects” of he New Covenant by understanding the “meaning” of what represents the “eating and drinking” of his flesh and blood of Christ.

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. – I think He means literally even Paul said if you have the bread and wine without precieving the Body and Blood you being condemnation on your self – kind of severe for a symbol don’t you think?

Just like being “born again by water and spirit” doesn’t mean we literally go back to our mothers’ wombs. But that we become New in our person from within and shed away the old personality that conforms to the sin that plagues us.

So unless “we eat” and “drink” meaning, we accept Him in our entire being (needs longer explanation) we can not have eternal life.

So what do you guys think?
Zahir
Click to expand...
 
Zahir said:
…
Look at it close. “this is my blood” (present tense)
**But then it changes to future tense **“which will be shed on behalf”.
Click to expand...
Hi Zahir,
Perhaps you should suggest he check into the Greek texts from which our English translations are made. I don’t know why some English translations change it into the future tense, for that is not the tense in the Greek. There, the tense is present, voice is passive, mood is participle - “is being shed”.
 
Thank you. I will look into the Greek scriptures myself so I can point it out to him.

I feel so blessed and for the first time I feel so united and connected with my Catholic community. Thank you guys for saying yes to the Lord and letting him use you just like our Mother Mary said yes.
God Bless you always
Zahir
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top