The Last Supper

[Wildgraywolf]

Some people argue that He did, including a tract I can’t find now, on CAF.

So let me change my question. How did He hold himself in his hands! By his own divine power?

If that’s the case then we’re back to my origional post

One really cool thing about being God is that He can say and do all kinds of things that are to the human intellect illogical and paradoxical and have them all be true.

 

[Vico]

Some people argue that He did, including a tract I can’t find now, on CAF.

So let me change my question. How did He hold himself in his hands! By his own divine power?

As one can hold the physical appearances of bread and wine, so one can hold the confected Eucharist.

 

[Faith1960]

As one can hold the physical appearances of bread and wine, so one can hold the confected Eucharist.

So it would be by His own divine power.

 

[Vico]

So it would be by His own divine power.

A human can hold the Eucharist, as when we receive communion, so it does not require one to be divine, as Jesus Christ.

 

[Faith1960]

A human can hold the Eucharist, as when we receive communion, so it does not require one to be divine, as Jesus Christ.

But He turned it into His body and blood by His divine power, correct?

 

[Vico]

But He turned it into His body and blood by His divine power, correct?

Yes, as we teach: body, blood, soul, and divinity.

 

[kdbueno]

The last supper approves that Eucharistic blessing is possible. Emulate the mass according to the mass in the old times, you will find a wealth of biblical moral theology.

 

[markdris]

Please help me out on this:

In 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26, St. Paul wrote that he received by revelation from God the details of the Last Supper (Jesus stating that it is His body and His blood).

Why did Paul receive this by revelation from God rather than from the mouths of the original Apostles? The Eucharist is the most holy Sacrament of the Catholic faith and Paul was commissioned by the original Apostles to spread the faith. Why didn’t the original Apostles fill Paul in on the details of the Last Supper? Wouldn’t that have been one of the most important things for the original Apostles to instruct Paul about? Why did he have to wait until a revelation by God to learn about it?

I understand Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is the earliest written record of the Last Supper, the Gospels having been written later than Paul’s letter.

 

[porthos11]

Please help me out on this:

In 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26, St. Paul wrote that he received by revelation from God the details of the Last Supper (Jesus stating that it is His body and His blood).

Why did Paul receive this by revelation from God rather than from the mouths of the original Apostles? The Eucharist is the most holy Sacrament of the Catholic faith and Paul was commissioned by the original Apostles to spread the faith. Why didn’t the original Apostles fill Paul in on the details of the Last Supper? Wouldn’t that have been one of the most important things for the original Apostles to instruct Paul about? Why did he have to wait until a revelation by God to learn about it?

I understand Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is the earliest written record of the Last Supper, the Gospels having been written later than Paul’s letter.

Because God saw it fit to do so, especially if Paul’s status as an apostle needed confirmation, as it had been called into question during his earlier years.

 

[MT1926]

Please help me out on this:

In 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26, St. Paul wrote that he received by revelation from God the details of the Last Supper (Jesus stating that it is His body and His blood).

Why did Paul receive this by revelation from God rather than from the mouths of the original Apostles?

If you read Acts 9 you will see that St. Paul’s revelation came directly from God.

15 And the Lord said to him: Go thy way; for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

Also, St. Paul started preaching before he met with the Apostles.

20 And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

The Eucharist is the most holy Sacrament of the Catholic faith and Paul was commissioned by the original Apostles to spread the faith. Why didn’t the original Apostles fill Paul in on the details of the Last Supper? Wouldn’t that have been one of the most important things for the original Apostles to instruct Paul about? Why did he have to wait until a revelation by God to learn about it?

I understand Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is the earliest written record of the Last Supper, the Gospels having been written later than Paul’s letter.

As mentioned above I believe St. Paul received this revelation before he met with the Apostles. After he preached Jesus we see he was taken to the Apostles.

27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and told them how he had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken to him; and how in Damascus he had dealt confidently in the name of Jesus.

Also, if we go to Galatians 1 we get some more evidence that St. Paul received his revelation directly from Christ.

*12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
*
He reaffirms that his teachings are directly from God, so that he might begin immediately.
*
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:*

However, important to note is that he does add:

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Here he reaffirms his audience that even though he is teaching from the revelation he says came directly from God he did spent 15 days with St. Peter going over what he has been teaching. Basically, he is letting them know that he has St. Peter’s blessing that he is teaching the same Gospel.

 

[markdris]

Because God saw it fit to do so, especially if Paul’s status as an apostle needed confirmation, as it had been called into question during his earlier years.

Did God also see fit for the original Apostles not to teach Paul about the Eucharist? If the original Apostles had chosen to instruct Paul about the Eucharist, wouldn’t that have served to confirm Paul’s status as an Apostle?

I’m wondering what the original Apostles taught Paul if they didn’t teach him about the Eucharist. Did they also fail to teach Paul about other matters important to the Catholic faith?

 

[markdris]

If you read Acts 9 you will see that St. Paul’s revelation came directly from God.

15 And the Lord said to him: Go thy way; for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

Also, St. Paul started preaching before he met with the Apostles.

20 And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

As mentioned above I believe St. Paul received this revelation before he met with the Apostles. After he preached Jesus we see he was taken to the Apostles.

27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and told them how he had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken to him; and how in Damascus he had dealt confidently in the name of Jesus.

Also, if we go to Galatians 1 we get some more evidence that St. Paul received his revelation directly from Christ.

*12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
*
He reaffirms that his teachings are directly from God, so that he might begin immediately.
*
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:*

However, important to note is that he does add:

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Here he reaffirms his audience that even though he is teaching from the revelation he says came directly from God he did spent 15 days with St. Peter going over what he has been teaching. Basically, he is letting them know that he has St. Peter’s blessing that he is teaching the same Gospel.

If you are right, then It seems to me Paul was really sticking his neck out by reporting on an historical event without first consulting with those who were present at the event. Writing the theology of the cross under inspiration by God is one thing, but reporting historical events without first checking with those involved seems to me to be quite a different thing.

 

[markdris]

If you read Acts 9 you will see that St. Paul’s revelation came directly from God.

15 And the Lord said to him: Go thy way; for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

Also, St. Paul started preaching before he met with the Apostles.

20 And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

As mentioned above I believe St. Paul received this revelation before he met with the Apostles. After he preached Jesus we see he was taken to the Apostles.

I remember reading that the Church at Jerusalem did not originally celebrate the Eucharist, unlike the various Churches to which Paul wrote his letters. That would tell me that the Eucharist may not have been a focal point for the original Apostles.

 

[porthos11]

Did God also see fit for the original Apostles not to teach Paul about the Eucharist? If the original Apostles had chosen to instruct Paul about the Eucharist, wouldn’t that have served to confirm Paul’s status as an Apostle?

I’m wondering what the original Apostles taught Paul if they didn’t teach him about the Eucharist. Did they also fail to teach Paul about other matters important to the Catholic faith?

If you read Galatians, you will see that Paul did get instruction from the James and Peter too.

since Paul was an apostle in his own right, he had the same full privileges as the rest of them. That includes receiving revelation and inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

It’s not about “failing”. The apostles were a college, and Paul was not inferior to the Twelve. God dealt with him in the manner he saw fit to secure Paul’s place in the apostolic effort.

 

[markdris]

If you read Galatians, you will see that Paul did get instruction from the James and Peter too.

since Paul was an apostle in his own right, he had the same full privileges as the rest of them. That includes receiving revelation and inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

It’s not about “failing”. The apostles were a college, and Paul was not inferior to the Twelve. God dealt with him in the manner he saw fit to secure Paul’s place in the apostolic effort.

**Today the Eucharist is the heart of Catholicism. Apparently in those days it was not even a matter of discussion between the Apostles (James and Peter) and Paul. I am not talking about who is inferior or superior. I am talking about whether the original Apostles appointed by Jesus had a discussion with Paul about the Eucharist.

Perhaps, as MT1926 suggested, Paul had not yet met with the original Apostles as of the time he received his revelation about the Last Supper directly from God. That brings up the entirely separate issue of apostolic succession, also central to Catholicism.

As I previously stated in another post, a God-inspired revelation about the theology of the cross is quite different from a God-inspired revelation about an historical event such as the Last Supper, It seems to me Paul should have consulted the Apostles who would have been present at such a Last Supper before writing an account of the Last Supper. The revelation to Paul about the Last Supper as contained in 1 Corinthians is the first written account of a Last Supper. What would have happened if Paul learned that his account of such a Last Supper was inaccurate when he later met with some of the original Apostles?**

 

[porthos11]

**Today the Eucharist is the heart of Catholicism. Apparently in those days it was not even a matter of discussion between the Apostles (James and Peter) and Paul. I am not talking about who is inferior or superior. I am talking about whether the original Apostles appointed by Jesus had a discussion with Paul about the Eucharist.

Perhaps, as MT1926 suggested, Paul had not yet met with the original Apostles as of the time he received his revelation about the Last Supper directly from God. That brings up the entirely separate issue of apostolic succession, also central to Catholicism.

As I previously stated in another post, a God-inspired revelation about the theology of the cross is quite different from a God-inspired revelation about an historical event such as the Last Supper, It seems to me Paul should have consulted the Apostles who would have been present at such a Last Supper before writing an account of the Last Supper. The revelation to Paul about the Last Supper as contained in 1 Corinthians is the first written account of a Last Supper. What would have happened if Paul learned that his account of such a Last Supper was inaccurate when he later met with some of the original Apostles?**

Scripture is silent about what transpired between Paul, Peter and James, and most certainly about the Eucharist. He may have consulted them on the matter, he may not have. We simply do not know.

Therefore, anything else is idle speculation, outside the fact that Paul received his revelation of the Eucharist directly from God. If it was a direct revelation from God, then his account would not be inaccurate.

Paul’s apostolic succession is not an issue, as he is not a successor to the Apostles; he is an apostle. His ordination is directly from Christ, not from the laying on of hands.

I’m no sure why any of this is even an issue.

 

[MT1926]

Today the Eucharist is the heart of Catholicism. Apparently in those days it was not even a matter of discussion between the Apostles (James and Peter) and Paul. I am not talking about who is inferior or superior. I am talking about whether the original Apostles appointed by Jesus had a discussion with Paul about the Eucharist.

I think it would be difficult to say “it was not even a matter of discussion”, the Bible does not tell us either way. From what I said above I would imagine it was the other way around. St. Paul would have told St. Peter about his revelation from Christ and what he had been teaching. Thus getting St. Peter’s blessing to continue with his mission.

As I previously stated in another post, a God-inspired revelation about the theology of the cross is quite different from a God-inspired revelation about an historical event such as the Last Supper, It seems to me Paul should have consulted the Apostles who would have been present at such a Last Supper before writing an account of the Last Supper.
The revelation to Paul about the Last Supper as contained in 1 Corinthians is the first written account of a Last Supper. What would have happened if Paul learned that his account of such a Last Supper was inaccurate when he later met with some of the original Apostles?

I did some quick research and I am seeing that St. Paul’s conversion occurred a few years after the Crucifixion. Then he went to spend time with St. Peter 3 years later, which is where I would believe the discussion about the last supper would have occurred during these 15 days.

Think about it they spent 15 days together. Can you even imagine, no TV, no distractions, nothing else to do but discuss Jesus. If you had 12 hours a day for the next 15 days could you read the entire New Testament? I hate to read but could probably get through it. If St. Paul’s revelation were accurate the entire 15 days would have been a one way discussion from St. Paul, with St. Peter sitting there going…yep, agree, you hit that one on the nose, etc… I am sure the last supper would have come into the discussion, either from St. Paul’s revelation or from St. Peter’s eye witness.

Now further investigation from historians say that St. Paul wrote his letters to Corinth approximately 20 years after the Crucifixion. I’m sure if he was preaching the Last Supper incorrectly for 20 years the word would have gotten back to the Apostles prior to him writing Corinthians.

 

[MT1926]

Perhaps, as MT1926 suggested, Paul had not yet met with the original Apostles as of the time he received his revelation about the Last Supper directly from God. That brings up the entirely separate issue of apostolic succession, also central to Catholicism.

Why does the fact that St. Paul’s revelation came directly from God create an issue with apostolic succession? If Jesus wanted 12 or 13 or 5 Apostles isn’t that his choice not ours?

 

[markdris]

I think it would be difficult to say “it was not even a matter of discussion”, the Bible does not tell us either way. From what I said above I would imagine it was the other way around. St. Paul would have told St. Peter about his revelation from Christ and what he had been teaching. Thus getting St. Peter’s blessing to continue with his mission.

I did some quick research and I am seeing that St. Paul’s conversion occurred a few years after the Crucifixion. Then he went to spend time with St. Peter 3 years later, which is where I would believe the discussion about the last supper would have occurred during these 15 days.

Think about it they spent 15 days together. Can you even imagine, no TV, no distractions, nothing else to do but discuss Jesus. If you had 12 hours a day for the next 15 days could you read the entire New Testament? I hate to read but could probably get through it. If St. Paul’s revelation were accurate the entire 15 days would have been a one way discussion from St. Paul, with St. Peter sitting there going…yep, agree, you hit that one on the nose, etc… I am sure the last supper would have come into the discussion, either from St. Paul’s revelation or from St. Peter’s eye witness.

Now further investigation from historians say that St. Paul wrote his letters to Corinth approximately 20 years after the Crucifixion. I’m sure if he was preaching the Last Supper incorrectly for 20 years the word would have gotten back to the Apostles prior to him writing Corinthians.

You assume Paul had received his revelation of the Last Supper as of the time he went to spend 15 days with Peter. 1 Corinthians 11 does not state when Paul received the revelation, but from what I state below, it seems likely Paul had not received the revelation as of that time.

As of the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11 (20 years after the crucifixion as you suggest), there obviously were very serious problems relating to the Last Supper. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11, 20-22 (NIV), "So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!"

If for 20 years Paul had been preaching the Lord’s Supper in the proper manner prescribed by 1 Corinthians 11, 23-26 (NIV), i.e., “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”, one can only wonder why the Corinthians were celebrating the type of “supper” described in 1 Corinthians 11, 20-22 as late as 20 years after the crucifixion. This tells me you are probably wrong about Paul having correctly preached about the Last Supper for a period of 20 years. It seems far more likely that the abuses of 1 Corinthians 11, 20-22 were the result of the fact that Paul had not been properly preaching about the Last Supper for any significant amount of time prior to 1 Corinthians 11.

 

[markdris]

Why does the fact that St. Paul’s revelation came directly from God create an issue with apostolic succession? If Jesus wanted 12 or 13 or 5 Apostles isn’t that his choice not ours?

I didn’t mean that God’s direct revelation to Paul creates a problem with apostolic succession. The fact that Paul had not met with the original Apostles or received any authority from them creates the problem with apostolic succession.

Jesus can have as many Apostles as he chooses. He happened to chose 12.