Yet Another Protestantism & Communion Thread

[Newsy]

Hahn and others - avid Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. - often embrace a ‘we alone have the only real truth’ mentality, and that is fine. Good for them. Just that millions of us relish the right to ‘think and let think’ and not insist that our faith is the one and only true faith.

Many groups use the “we alone have the truth” attitude. Who can prove it? Protestants think you can get closer to the truth by getting farther away, ie by seperating into 40,000 separate sects we become closer to the truth. The Jews waited for a Savior, but refused to recognize Him. Islam is based on one man’s dreams and visions. I’d say that the Catholic Church and 2000 years of history have the “whole truth”.

The Catholic Faith recognizes there are aspects of truth in many churches, but they refuse to follow the Church Christ gave us. The Catholic Church allows personal interpretation inside the boundaries of her teaching, this keeps people from falling into heresy. Here’s an analogy, along the edge of a 500 ft cliff lays a road. Along the edge of that road, there is a guardrail. Is that guardrail trying to keep us from being free? Is its purpose to keep us from going our own way or is its purpose to keep us from falling to our death? Keeping the faithful from falling into heresy and falling away from God is the purpose of the Catholic Church. If we believe we have a better understanding and more knowledge that the Church Christ gave us, then our pride might be making us think we are better than we are. The teachings of the Catholic Church aren’t ours because Magesterium said so, these teachings were given to the Apostles by Christ, then to the Church, then to us.

 

[Nicea325]

Church Militant, I promised I would look at your blog and so here it is. You quote scripture that is very familiar (ending with first Cor). You then write:

Your above arguments are two of the favorites of Catholics around here and so I have already responded to them on a number of occasions. Here is how I have responded previously (when presented with essentially the same arguments)…first regarding 1 Cor 10 and then regarding 1st Cor 11:

1 Cor 10 reads: Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body ; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel ; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar ? 19 What do I mean then ? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything ? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God ; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons ; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

WRT the sharing in the body and blood that some think points to a real bodily presence (RBP), please note how Paul continues and then applies the “sharing” to the altar (of the Israelites) where one eats one thing (ie a sacrificial animal) and then shares in another thing (the stone altar). This establishes two things. First, it establishes that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, consumption of the thing one shares in, is not required (they didn’t consume the altar). Second, it establishes that one can consume one thing (such as mere bread) and share in another (the body of Christ). As such, a RBP is not required.

Further, Paul then contemplated the matter as it related to demons. He stated that one can become a “sharer” with demons establishing that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, a real bodily presence is not required since demons do not have bodies. If that wasn’t enough, Paul also indicated that one could be a partner with demons by eating food sacrificed to idols even though an idol isn’t anything. This again demonstrates that a RBP is not necessary for the partnership Paul envisioned.

More Protestant nonsense! If Jesus truly wanted it to be symbolic,why did he not use any Aramaic word to simply mean it as symbolic? Apparently you do not speak more than language.

 

[CompSciGuy]

CompSciGuy

** It is my personal view that Christians can have a strong sense of unity**, that we can be truly one fellowship, and still permit individual Christians the right to have differing views when it comes to various doctrinal matters. In this universe of perhaps as many as a billion solar systems, who can claim to have ultimate knowledge of matters beyond human knowledge and understanding? Isn’t that essentially why we worship God? I note that Protestants disagree on certain dogmae but still cooperate through the National and World Councils of Churches. Catholic clergy now are much involved in local clergy associations (formerly ministerial associations) and that is a good thing.

I believe that true freedom of religion - for me, anyway - involves the right to think for ourselves, to weigh, investigate, question, discuss, ponder, perhaps even dissent. I know that this is not a popular view among those who insist that one must abide by the conclusions reached by the Magisterium, but that is the conclusion I have reached over the years. This has made it difficult for me to conform automatically to any church, pastor, creed, or whatever that limits our right to think for ourselves. This also has tended to distance me from the Catholicism on the paternal side of our family. I respect various faiths as they seek to reach out to the Divine as long as they tolerate my right to do the same. Christ remains my personal guide, Shepherd, model, and Lord.

** Therefore - in line with this thread - I respect diverse ways of interpretating communion.** If people can believe in Transubstantiation, fine. Half of US Catholics apparently don’t believe in it. If Christians view communion as symbolic. Fine. All Christians I know agree that Christ is actually present as he promised - “lo, I am with you always…” The question becomes: “Does the prayer of consecration by the priest change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?” We can and should respect the views of one another.

** By the way, “I and my Father are one.”** An important verse you quote. But what does one do with verses like Matt. 19:17 - “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but the Father.” Etc.

 **Scripture can be confusing**. Therefore, many look to their church or their preacher to interpret it for them. Okay with me. But I treasure the right to examine such texts and wrestle with their meaning myself or within a Bible study group where free conversation is welcome. I rather think that God approves of such wrestling. I certainly don't believe that our God of love and mercy and compassion frowns upon those who are serious in their exploration of spiritual truth.

** Keep smiling.** God bless people of all creeds, colors, cultures and countries. Let us strive to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier.

You’re speaking off-topic from my post. The topic of my post is whether the vast majority of Protestants reject fundamental dogmas of the faith, necessary for the title “Christian,” such as the resurrection, the virgin birth, etc. I’m sorry, but all your talk about Christian unity is pure tripe. A person is free to believe whatever they want even when scripture clearly teaches them otherwise, as is the case in the VB or the resurrection or the divinity of Christ. But if you reject the essentials, by what standard do you call yourself a Christian? You’re basically a pseudo-Christian agnostic.

As for Matthew 19:17, Jesus is clearly making a reference to his own divinity. He isn’t saying “Why are you calling me good, there is noone good but God, and that’s not me.” People who use this as an argument against Christ’s divinity use it way out of context. It’s absurd, if you look at all of scripture you will clearly see that Jesus claims to be God. I don’t owe intellectual respect for those who twist scripture to their own liking.

 

[domandcarols]

Go forward and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit…and be sure to include Conservative, Liberal, wide lattitude and dissenting in the formula that we may all be one…as I and the Father are one…

 

[jamesrussell49]

I don’t agree with any of those assertions and believe that those assertions come from an extremely common (around here, at least) misreading of John 6 and an incorrect assessment of what the crowd understood that day and what Christ intended that day. I note:

IMHO, this too makes more sense if we understand the “hard teaching” to be Christ’s claim to have come done from heaven. In that case, Christ is essentially saying, don’t judge where I came from based on who you think are my earthly parents (that parental flesh counts for nothing). Instead, Christ is telling them to judge where he came from based on his wrds being full of the Spirit and life.

**64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” **

At the end, we see yet another emphasis on the need to believe in Christ (and that he came from heaven as the Holy One of God).

That was quite a post, and you seemed to have tried to think about both sides of the coin.
However, I don’t think the crowds had a tough time with Jesus’ origination or WHO sent him. He had just gave them plenty of miracle food to feed their fleshly bodies (and their “faith” in Him). I don’t think they had a tough time “believe”-ing in him in the modern sense. What they could not believe was that “this man would give us his flesh to eat?”
Verse 66 says that “disciples”, not just people in the crowd, left him. He does not dissuade them, it is true. Seems like a petty point not to try and explain, as he did of the parables they also could not understand.

 

[Radical]

However, I don’t think the crowds had a tough time with Jesus’ origination or WHO sent him.

verses 41 and 42 state that you are wrong on that point:

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

His claim to have come down from heaven is exactly what started their grumbling

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I would like to offer a reflective commentary to this subject that may lend it some more understanding of Jesus bread of life discourse.

The question I would ask? Who was Jesus speaking to in John? 6:53 Jesus said to them, “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. 54 Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 66 As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

70 **Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?” **

Verse 70 always gets me here; Jesus fully human and fully divine speaks from both his humanity and divinity to man and man’s eternal soul.

How did Jesus know one of them was a devil? Reveals to me that Jesus was speaking not only to their person but Jesus was speaking to their eternal souls and Jesus viewing their souls as they stood saw one having a devil.

The body must consume Jesus flesh and blood so that when the body returns to dust the soul gains the body and blood of Christ so as to be given eternal life, when Jesus words come to pass “56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me”

No one can go before the Father except through Jesus.

Jesus states 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh* is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

The disciples who took Jesus words by carnal understanding went to their former way of life in the Old covenant of the flesh. The new and everlasting covenant fulfilled the old covenant in his body and blood. But, we have to eat this body and blood, just as foreshadowed in the old covenant one had to eat the flesh of the passover lamb and spread the lambs blood over their dwelling.

If protestants or non catholics take Jesus words spoken in spirit to mean something symbolic or metaphorical then their whole biblical theology goes out the window because there is no such thing as a “symbolic or metaphorical spirit” revealed in scripture.

A symbolic body and blood cannot give a soul eternal life, only are real presence body and blood of Jesus consubstantial with the Father can give a soul eternal life.

Just a reflection

Hey Radical just noticed your last post was number 66 what a coincidence

 

[Miriam1947]

Great post Gabriel of 12.

 

[Radical]

The body must consume Jesus flesh and blood so that when the body returns to dust the soul gains the body and blood of Christ so as to be given eternal life, when Jesus words come to pass…

The question is: HOW is that consumption achieved? Many are saved who have never “consumed Christ’s flesh” at a Eucharist.

If protestants or non catholics take Jesus words spoken in spirit to mean something symbolic or metaphorical then their whole biblical theology goes out the window because there is no such thing as a “symbolic or metaphorical spirit” revealed in scripture.

I am not sure what you mean here. Symbols can have spiritual meaning. Words can have spiritual meaning. Words can be symbols. I don’t see a problem.

A symbolic body and blood cannot give a soul eternal life,…

agreed, God gives eternal life.

…only are real presence body and blood of Jesus consubstantial with the Father can give a soul eternal life.

God can give eternal life through whatever means he chooses. A real bodily presence is not required as evidenced by OT saints who are given eternal life w/o ever having seen a Eucharist.

Hey Radical just noticed your last post was number 66 what a coincidence

and this is post 69:

69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
If protestants or non catholics take Jesus words spoken in spirit to mean something symbolic or metaphorical then their whole biblical theology goes out the window because there is no such thing as a “symbolic or metaphorical spirit” revealed in scripture.

I am not sure what you mean here. Symbols can have spiritual meaning. Words can have spiritual meaning. Words can be symbols. I don’t see a problem

.

But can one eat symbolism?

Quote:
A symbolic body and blood cannot give a soul eternal life,…

agreed, God gives eternal life.

Yes and one is through His Body and Blood as He freely gave us.

Quote:
…only are real presence body and blood of Jesus consubstantial with the Father can give a soul eternal life.

God can give eternal life through whatever means he chooses. A real bodily presence is not required as evidenced by OT saints who are given eternal life w/o ever having seen a Eucharist.

Precisely God gives eternal life any way he chooses and one is through His Body and Blood.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Radical;8610419]The question is: HOW is that consumption achieved? Many are saved who have never “consumed Christ’s flesh” at a Eucharist

.

And here is the mystery; In holy communion the spiritiual reality through the sacraments is that we are “partakers of his divinity” (see 2 Peter 1:4Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them** you may come to share in the divine nature**,) To describe this spiritual reality in spiritual terms reveals it is Jesus who “Consumes Us” so as to partake of this divinity. We don’t consume Jesus body and blood, we “eat and drink” Jesus body and blood so that Jesus truly consumes our souls into himself, “in him, with him and through him in the unity of the Holy Spirit” is when we can truly worship God in SPIRIT AND TRUTH (see John 4:23-24).

I agree the good theif on the cross was promised paradise, but his baptism was a baptism by blood for example, many early Christians did not accept baptism and the Viaticum (Eucharist) until their death bed.

The Truth is, Jesus is the one who teaches and reveals how a “Christian” is promised eternal life. Baptism saves you now! (see 1Peter 3:21) is the entrance into the kingdom of God so one can see and enter (see John 3:4-5).

We must eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood is what promises “eternal life”. While the baptised are working out their salvation with fear and trembling (see Philippians 2:12) on earth,** the soul is promised eternal life in Christ, if we eat his flesh and drink his blood, after the body which does not availeth nothing returns to dust, the soul enters eternal life because the soul legally through the body obeyed Jesus by "eating his body and drinking his blood.**

We know also that Jesus went to the sheol/hades to preach his gospel to the prisoners in death and released them. Yet John the revelator reveals Jesus given them the “hidden manna” in heaven.

Ultimately God can save anyone at anytime, but His Son Jesus revealed how He promises us eternal life if we obey Jesus and do not walk away from him.

I am not sure what you mean here. Symbols can have spiritual meaning. Words can have spiritual meaning. Words can be symbols. I don’t see a problem.

Jesus is not speaking about symbols, Jesus relates the Spirit as the one who gives life. Just as God breathed life into the first Adam, so now the Same Spirit in the New Covenant cannot come into us unless we eat Jesus body and drink his blood. Then the Spirit is able to come into new wineskins giving us the new wine of eternal life.

Paul reveals your problem here; 1Corinthians 2:10 this God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God… no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 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. 13And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms. **

14 Now the natural person 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.* 15The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment* by anyone.

16For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

God can give eternal life through whatever means he chooses. A real bodily presence is not required as evidenced by OT saints who are given eternal life w/o ever having seen a Eucharist.

1. We are no longer living in the Old Covenant revealed in the OT, Jesus fulfilled the law and prophets in his body and blood. The OT saints never entered heaven until Jesus freed them from captivity in the abode of the dead how? through his body and blood sacrifice, where they now celebrate the wedding feast of the lamb eating what? The hidden manna for those who are victorious.
2. God willed and revealed to give eternal life through His Son Jesus by eating his body and drinking His blood.
3. God willed and revealed that “My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”, that a real bodily and blood presence is what gives our souls eternal life so as to be given a new body in the resurrection.

and this is post 69:

69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Now that you have been chosen because you believe do you also want to leave? Because you “must eat my flesh and drink my blood in order to have eternal life”, and yet “is not one of you a devil”? “No one can come to me unless it is granted by my Father”.

 

[Radical]

.

But can one eat symbolism?

not to a greater degree than to the degree that one can eat realism…and certain symbols can be eaten

 

[Nicea325]

not to a greater degree than to the degree that one can eat realism…and certain symbols can be eaten

Interesting. May you kindly provide one symbol outside the Communion which can be eaten…literally?

 

[Nicea325]

.

And here is the mystery; In holy communion the spiritiual reality through the sacraments is that we are “partakers of his divinity” (see 2 Peter 1:4Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them** you may come to share in the divine nature**,) To describe this spiritual reality in spiritual terms reveals it is Jesus who “Consumes Us” so as to partake of this divinity. We don’t consume Jesus body and blood, we “eat and drink” Jesus body and blood so that Jesus truly consumes our souls into himself, “in him, with him and through him in the unity of the Holy Spirit” is when we can truly worship God in SPIRIT AND TRUTH (see John 4:23-24).

I agree the good theif on the cross was promised paradise, but his baptism was a baptism by blood for example, many early Christians did not accept baptism and the Viaticum (Eucharist) until their death bed.

The Truth is, Jesus is the one who teaches and reveals how a “Christian” is promised eternal life. Baptism saves you now! (see 1Peter 3:21) is the entrance into the kingdom of God so one can see and enter (see John 3:4-5).

We must eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood is what promises “eternal life”. While the baptised are working out their salvation with fear and trembling (see Philippians 2:12) on earth,** the soul is promised eternal life in Christ, if we eat his flesh and drink his blood, after the body which does not availeth nothing returns to dust, the soul enters eternal life because the soul legally through the body obeyed Jesus by "eating his body and drinking his blood.**

We know also that Jesus went to the sheol/hades to preach his gospel to the prisoners in death and released them. Yet John the revelator reveals Jesus given them the “hidden manna” in heaven.

Ultimately God can save anyone at anytime, but His Son Jesus revealed how He promises us eternal life if we obey Jesus and do not walk away from him.

Jesus is not speaking about symbols, Jesus relates the Spirit as the one who gives life. Just as God breathed life into the first Adam, so now the Same Spirit in the New Covenant cannot come into us unless we eat Jesus body and drink his blood. Then the Spirit is able to come into new wineskins giving us the new wine of eternal life.

Paul reveals your problem here; 1Corinthians 2:10 this God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God… no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 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. 13And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms. **

14 Now the natural person 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.* 15The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment* by anyone.

16For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

1. We are no longer living in the Old Covenant revealed in the OT, Jesus fulfilled the law and prophets in his body and blood. The OT saints never entered heaven until Jesus freed them from captivity in the abode of the dead how? through his body and blood sacrifice, where they now celebrate the wedding feast of the lamb eating what? The hidden manna for those who are victorious.
2. God willed and revealed to give eternal life through His Son Jesus by eating his body and drinking His blood.
3. God willed and revealed that “My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”, that a real bodily and blood presence is what gives our souls eternal life so as to be given a new body in the resurrection.

Now that you have been chosen because you believe do you also want to leave? Because you “must eat my flesh and drink my blood in order to have eternal life”, and yet “is not one of you a devil”? “No one can come to me unless it is granted by my Father”.

Aahhhhh…love 1 Cor: 10-16. Very strong words.

 

[Radical]

Interesting. May you kindly provide one symbol outside the Communion which can be eaten…literally?

Manna - symbolized the bread of life

the elements of a Passover meal and in particluar the lamb - symbolized Christ

alphabet soup and a gingerbread man

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Manna - symbolized the bread of life

the elements of a Passover meal and in particluar the lamb - symbolized Christ

alphabet soup and a gingerbread man

I thought the passover meal included unleavend bread and a slain lamb? which forshadowed Christ. Now revealed and made new in the new covenant at the last supper when, Jesus the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world is present no symbol here.

The manna eaten in the (OT) passover is always eaten in “God’s presence” (face of God). Jesus (the lamb) now in the last supper is God present incarnate takes the bread and wine and makes his body and blood present in them and gives his disciples to eat and drink his presence which consumes their souls with eternal life.

There is no symbols being used at the last supper all elements are taken at the command of God " This is my body, This is my blood". Where’s the symbol?

God does not change, God spoke to the dust and water and created man, but what gave man life was the “Spirit” breathed by God into man. Although man is made of dust and water, what we see is flesh and bone, God has created this not man.

God speaks to the bread and wine and they become his body and blood present so that we may partake of his divinity into eternal life.

The Jewish religion would not agree with you either that the passover lacked the presence of God in the bread.

Exodus 34:23, 23:17 reveal that 3 times a year which included the passover meal they must renew their covenant with God before “His face”, your KJ translation might record “before the Lord God”. see also Exodus 25:30

Jesus was fulfilling this perpetual law and renewing the Covenant of God in His own body and blood presence before his disciples, from not a symbol but a “true bodily and blood presence” as He “faced” his disciples being present before them in the “new and everlasting covenant” which they partook of that became his body and blood present to them.

“Exodus 24:11…So they saw God, and they ate and drank”. The Jewish talmud confirms what they ate and drank was “unleavened bread and wine”.

Thus Paul professes that the Church is the body of Christ, who is our head.

But for this new covenant to be fulfilled, “you must eat my body and drink my blood”.

 

[Nicea325]

Manna - symbolized the bread of life

the elements of a Passover meal and in particluar the lamb - symbolized Christ

alphabet soup and a gingerbread man

Manna bread is an actual tangent element,not symbolic.Did not God tell Moses to tell the people to eat it? It is also a foreshadowing the Christian Communion.

The elements of the Seder meal were actual tangent as well. Real wine and a real slain lamb,not cut-outs to symbolize them.

 

[Newsy]

During the first passover, did the lamb need to be sacrificed and eaten? Or could it just be believed in?

When Christ went to the cross, was is symbolically or actually? Did He have to die and be raised or could He just do something symbolic of it?

Christ had to die on the cross to fulfill the Old Covenant. He was the only one who could. The passover and the passion are inseparable b/c the Last Supper was a seder meal. It was a seder left unfinished, they left singing hymns before the “great hallel”. It wasn’t completed with the final “cup of blessing” until He took the vinegar, offered on a hyssop branch, while on the cross. The hyssop branch, you will recall, was prescribed to be used to spread the lamb’s blood on the door frame during the 1st passover. Jesus even speaks of the last “cup” while in the garden of Gethsemane. Christ died at 3 o’clock, the time the temple high priest started to slaughter the lambs for the passover. Through all this, nothing was symbolic.

Why would we assume the Eucharist, a re-presentation of Christ’s once and for all sacrifice, to be symbolic? By re-presentation I mean, our chance to offer our sufferings along with His, not any new sacrifice.

 

[Radical]

Newsy, it seems your questions and conclusions are entirely misplaced

During the first passover, did the lamb need to be sacrificed and eaten? Or could it just be believed in?

for the Lord’s supper does the bread need to be broken and eaten? Or could it just be believed in?

When Christ went to the cross, was is symbolically or actually? Did He have to die and be raised or could He just do something symbolic of it?

When the angel passed over Egypt, was is symbolically or actually? Did the Israelites have to leave Egypt to get to the promised land, or could they just do something symbolic of it?

Why would we assume the Eucharist, a re-presentation of Christ’s once and for all sacrifice, to be symbolic?

Why would we assume the Passover, a re-presentation of the Exodus, to be symbolic? Well, b/c it isn’t the actual exodus, it is a commemoration of it (with the elements of the meal symbolizing things in the exodus).

 

[Radical]

Manna bread is an actual tangent element,not symbolic.

well, you are too late to tell John Paul II that he got it wrong when he said that manna was a symbol, but you could still correct the Catholic Encyclopedia…BTW, what’s a “tangent element”?

Did not God tell Moses to tell the people to eat it?

yep, that is what makes it an ** eaten** symbol.