Christian: Real Presence

[writer]

160 We don't recognize "separate denominations."
If denominations didn't they wouldn't b denominations

one body...with many different parts
Now you're the Body of Christ and members individually, 1 Cor 12:27. Parts r individual human beings. Denominations aren't parts

send God's Spirit upon the gifts of bread and wine, when sanctified, they do have God's Spirit upon them
I'll pour out My Spirit upon all flesh, Ac 2:17. God pours Himself as Spirit on people. Bread and wine aren't people

Neither were we alive before Christ came to us
It's reserved for men to die once and after this comes judgment, Heb 9:27. I had to be, and was, physically alive. Bread and wine aren't and weren't

The bread and wine are more than symbols...
This is My body; This is My blood of the covenant, Mt 26:26, 28.
This product of the vine; As often as you eat this bread, 26:29; 1 Cor 11:26.
They're both symbols, and bread and wine

they are the body and blood of Christ.
In symbol. This is My body; This is My blood of the covenant, Mt 26:26, 28

We're not talking about Jewish Temple worship.
The Scriptures testify concerning Me, Jn 5:39. Jewish Temple worship is talking about the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all; For by one offering...Heb 10:10-22 is talking about Jesus Christ.
This is My body; This is My blood; symbolizes Jesus Christ

We're talking about the one sacrifice of Christ being brought into the present...
Christ through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God. Death having taken place; Christ entered into heaven itself to appear now before the face of God for us not in order that He might offer Himself often, since then He would have to suffer often; But now, once, He's been manifested for the putting away of sin through the sacrifice of Himself. It's reserved for men to die once. So Christ also, having been offered once. This One having offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down forever on the right hand of God, Heb 9:14-15, 24-28; 10:12.
Christ's one sacrifice transpired once about 1,973 years ago. Christ's present. But His sacrifice neither is, nor needs to be, "brought into the present" in the way you state

so we too, can be participants in it.
Righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ to all those who believe; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that's in Christ Jesus; whom God set forth as a propitiation place through faith in His blood, for the demonstrating of His righteousness; who justifies him who is of the faith of Jesus, Rm 3:22-26.
People can receive Christ's offering of Himself, but not "participate in it" in the way u speak

It is poured from a cruet or flagon into a chalice at the Table.
Not in Matthew 26.
He took a cup and gave thanks, and He gave it to them, saying, Drink of it, all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which's being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins, Mt 26:27-28

That act is part of the anamnesis that puts the one sacrifice -- the one pouring out of Christ's blood -- in the present for us.
One of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood, Jn 19:34. Christ died for our sins about 1,973 years ago. Once, through the eternal Spirit. Hence: the eternal Spirit is the eternal presence of His death, and life, and eternal life

Kroger is really not cogent to the argument.
Ditto for cruets, flagons, and chalices

The bread and wine are efficacious in a way that is different from and more powerful than an icon.
An icon's unpowerful, except perhaps to someone's imagination, or as the residence of a demon. Bread and wine are effective symbols becuz they're God-ordained, Mt 26-29

it's not "like my mom's photo is my mom."
This is My body; This is My blood; r exactly representative, symbolic, pictorial, and descriptive

A photo (or symbol) can only invoke a memory, not a living presence,
I'm with you all the days until the consummation of the age, Mt 28:20

such as happens in Holy Communion.
Whether Christ's with you, at your Holy Communion or anytime, is up to His resurrection and your faith and obedience. It's not up to a false presence

Writer, what is the background of your faith?
The prophets' and apostles' tradition in the Bible

Is the church you attend part of the Stone-Campbell tradition?
No.
Thanx

 

[sojourner]

Now you're the Body of Christ and members individually, 1 Cor 12:27. Parts r individual human beings. Denominations aren't parts

Really? So the Church at Ephesus was a completely different Church from the one at Corinth? That would indicate a Biblical precedent for denominations...

I'll pour out My Spirit upon all flesh, Ac 2:17. God pours Himself as Spirit on people. Bread and wine aren't people

Yet, God's Spirit moved over the face of the waters in creation. Why not the wine of the Eucharist?

I had to be, and was, physically alive.

So was the wheat that was made into bread...and the grapes that were made into wine. We're talking about alive with God's Spirit.

They're both symbols, and bread and wine

But they're also more than that.

they are the body and blood of Christ.
In symbol. This is My body; This is My blood of the covenant, Mt 26:26, 28

Not "This is a symbol of my body..."

Christ's one sacrifice transpired once about 1,973 years ago. Christ's present. But His sacrifice neither is, nor needs to be, "brought into the present" in the way you state

Sure it does! Anamnesis allows us to "re-live that event in a way that current existence is transformed. In a dramatic and tangible fashion it re-presents the gospel of Christ. It focuses for us the eternal significance of the one who meets us within this special fellowship.

"When the [ancient] congregation met in anamnesis of the crucified Lord, the 'Risen Christ, in the power of his accepted sacrifice, would be present in the midst in his living reality...In every Eucharist of the local congregation are made present again the Lakeside meals and the haburah scene in the Upper Room, as well as Golgotha and the Garden of Resurrection: The whole Gospel, in fact, is re-presented, is made present, in all its saving power." -- Bert Cartwright, People of the Chalice.

It is poured from a cruet or flagon into a chalice at the Table.
Not in Matthew 26.
He took a cup and gave thanks, and He gave it to them, saying, Drink of it, all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which's being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins, Mt 26:27-28

What's your point? Jesus drank real wine...not grape juice. So what? The point is that the wine, as the blood of Jesus is poured out for all to see.

Kroger is really not cogent to the argument.
Ditto for cruets, flagons, and chalices

Then, we could also say, ditto for the cross?

The bread and wine are efficacious in a way that is different from and more powerful than an icon.
An icon's unpowerful, except perhaps to someone's imagination, or as the residence of a demon. Bread and wine are effective symbols becuz they're God-ordained, Mt 26-29

I wouldn't call an act of contemplation, where one meets Christ, a product of imagination, or a residence of evil. Be careful!

In what way does God's command make inanimate bread and wine effective for us? How does that happen? What's going on in that process or action?

This is My body; This is My blood; r exactly representative, symbolic, pictorial, and descriptive

But that sort of representation does not affect us in the same way you seem to think the Eucharist ought to affect us, because

A photo (or symbol) can only invoke a memory, not a living presence

Whether Christ's with you, at your Holy Communion or anytime, is up to His resurrection and your faith and obedience. It's not up to a false presence

And I'm telling you that my faith and obedience tell me that the resurrected Christ is truly present in the bread and wine. I have no idea what your faith and obedience are telling you.

 

[writer]

162 So the Church at Ephesus was a completely different Church from the one at Corinth?
i'm unsure what u mean

That would indicate a Biblical precedent for denominations
It duzn't cuz they're not denominations. In any case, as we've gotten into before, the "precedent" is more in factionalism, as in "I'm of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas, I of Christ" 1 Cor 3:12. Which's a negative thing, 3:10-11

Yet, God's Spirit moved over the face of the waters in creation.
The literal waters there're allegory for us as fallen mankind, Jn 2:7; Eph 4:18

Why not the wine of the Eucharist?
Cuz God's not creating Himself out of, nor imparting Himself into, wine(s).
In any case, God's Spirit can move over wine as equally well as He can over the floor of our meeting place

So was the wheat that was made into bread...
Alive not as bread. Nor was the wheat made with a spirit, heart, and mouth, like u were, to contain your, our, Creator (Gen 1:26; 2:7, 9, 16; Jn 1:12-13; 20:22; Rm 10:9-13)

and the grapes that were made into wine.
Alive not as wine. Wine's not alive. It's inanimate. Nor was it made in the image and likeness of God to contain God. Nor did "The Word become physical wine," Jn 1:14. Except in perhaps your religion's particular fantasy

We're talking about alive with God's Spirit.
Bread as bread, and wine as wine,'re neither alive, nor alive w/ God's Spirit, nor ever were, nor ever will be

Not "This is a symbol of my body..."
It's understood. Jus like u (hopefully) would know a photograph of my mom's not made out of my mom's flesh. 'Cept mebbe in your religion

Anamnesis allows us to "re-live
To the contrary: the Resurrection and the Life, become a life-giving Spirit in resurrection, "allows folks to live" by giving anyone who believes into Him eternal life, Jn 3:16; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Jn 11:25; 5:21, 26; 6:63.
"Anamnesis" isn't a proper noun, and means simply "remembrance." It's not a magical word

What's your point? Jesus drank real wine...not grape juice. So what? The point is that the wine, as the blood of Jesus is poured out for all to see.
Not in Matthew 26. He took a cup and gave thanks, and He gave it to them, saying, Drink of it, all of you, for this is My blood of the covenant, which's being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins, Mt 26:27-28

Then, we could also say, ditto for the cross?
Not me. Perhaps u could try. That's where God-Man poured out His blood for all to see

I wouldn't call an act of contemplation, where one meets Christ, a product of imagination, or a residence of evil. Be careful!
What then am I saying? That an idol is anything? No, but that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I don't want you to become those who have fellowship with demons. You can't drink the Lord's cup and the demons' cup...1 Cor 10:19-21.
I called your icons "idols," since u introduced "icons" here. Be careful reading!

In what way does God's command make inanimate bread and wine effective for us?
Effective symbols? By saying "This is My body; This is My blood; Do this in remembrance of Me"

How does that happen?
It happened. In an upper room. About 1,973 years ago. In Jerusalem. Recorded in Mt 26 and Lk 22. As they were eating, Jesus took a loaf and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me, 22:19

What's going on in that process or action?
Jesus symbolized His body with a loaf, bread; and His new covenant, His blood, with a cup of wine; and commanded His disciples to "Do this in remembrance of Me"

A photo (or symbol) can only invoke a memory, not a living presence
The reason that's a falsehood's cuz Jesus Christ is risen, alive, and present.
Nor do symbols' presence mean that their Symbolized isn't, or can't, be present too

I have no idea what your faith and obedience are telling you.
"Do this in remembrance of Me."
Thanx

 

[sojourner]

In what way does God's command make inanimate bread and wine effective for us?
Effective symbols? By saying "This is My body; This is My blood; Do this in remembrance of Me"

So, our saying of the Words of Institution make them effective? I thought it was the Spirit that was efficacious.

How does that happen?
It happened. In an upper room. About 1,973 years ago. In Jerusalem. Recorded in Mt 26 and Lk 22. As they were eating, Jesus took a loaf and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me, 22:19

That made the meal meaningful for those people, in that particular time and place. What makes it effectual for us, here and now?

What's going on in that process or action?
Jesus symbolized His body with a loaf, bread; and His new covenant, His blood, with a cup of wine; and commanded His disciples to "Do this in remembrance of Me"

Commanded us to do what, exactly? Break bread and lift a cup? We can do that at Steak -n- Ale. Why exactly is doing that at worship different?

Nor do symbols' presence mean that their Symbolized isn't, or can't, be present too

Thank you for admitting that Christ is truly present in the Meal.

 

[writer]

164 So, our saying of the Words of Institution make them effective?
The Spirit of Christ makes His words effective (2 Cor 3:6; etc).
In any case, posts 162/163, which u quoted, read: "God's command."
Not "OUR saying"

I thought it was the Spirit that was efficacious.
amen. The Spirit gives life, 2 Cor 3:6; Jn 6:63; 1 Cor 15:45; Rm 8:6; etc)

That made the meal meaningful for those people, in that particular time and place.
the fact that it transpired?
I'd say so

What makes it effectual for us, here and now?
whether u obey God's command then: "Do this in remembrance o' Me."
And also "fleeing from idolatry" 1 Cor 10:14, 21;
"proving" yourself" 11:28; "discerning the body," 11:29

Commanded us to do what, exactly? Break bread and lift a cup?
break bread, each partake, each share wine from a cup, in remembrance of Him and "declaring His death"

We can do that at Steak -n- Ale.
If u feel led by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Tho it might be distracting to others

Why exactly is doing that at worship different?
Jesus said to her, an hour's coming and now is when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. But an hour's coming, and it's now, when the true worshippers'll worship the Father in spirit and in truthfulness, for the Father also seeks such to worship Him. God's Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truthfulness, Jn 4:21-24

Thank you for admitting that Christ is truly present in the Meal
Christ's truly present everywhere, since He's (His Spirit's) "poured out on all flesh."
Whether you enjoy or experience Him, or to what extent,'s up to your faith, exercise o' your spirit, proving, and other items mentioned in 4th para abuv

 

[sojourner]

The Spirit of Christ makes His words effective

Yet, we say them over and over again. Does each instance constitute "another saying" of them? Does each instance constitute Jesus' words, or our words? Or are we bringing those words of Jesus into the present with us, by saying them in the present?

That made the meal meaningful for those people, in that particular time and place.
the fact that it transpired?
I'd say so

Great!

What makes it effectual for us, here and now?
whether u obey God's command then: "Do this in remembrance o' Me."

How do we obey God's command? By participating in it, ourselves, in the present? Or by only remembering that others did it long ago?

Commanded us to do what, exactly? Break bread and lift a cup?
break bread, each partake, each share wine from a cup, in remembrance of Him and "declaring His death"

What about those of us who don't use a common cup, but use the little, individual ones? What about those of us who use grape juice, instead of wine?

those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truthfulness

And how do we do that with regard to the Eucharist? perhaps by saying the words and doing the acts in the present?

We say the words, again and again, every week. We do the acts, again and again, every week. And we do them in many different places at the same time. Yet, we are not celebrating many Eucharists, but one Eucharist. The words (while it is us that are saying them) are not our words. They are Christ's words -- said in the present, as well as in the past. If, as you said, the meal was effective for those people because it happened (in their time and in their presence), then the meal must be effective for us, because it happens (in our time and in our presence). That's anamnesis. And if Christ was present to his disciples in the meal in that time and place, then Christ is also present to we disciples in this time and place.

 

[writer]

166 Yet, we say them over and over again.
I'm sorry i don't understand your "Yet." U mean "in spite of Christ's Spirit" u repeat His words, or some of them, over and over again?
I'm sorry i don't follow your meaning

Does each instance constitute "another saying" of them?
In saying "say them over and over again," it appears u answer your own question

Does each instance constitute Jesus' words, or our words?
Objectively-speakin: both.
2 Cor 3:6's another matter

Or are we bringing those words of Jesus into the present with us,
Since Christ Jesus is risen (present), it's not difficult for Him for His words to be.
The letter kills but the Spirit gives life. And other words too.
"Interpreting spiritual things w/ spiritual words, words taught by the Spirit"
1 Cor 2:13.
And also since His recorded, respired, words are written down. Or memorized

by saying them in the present?
If u repeat words, or write them down, i hav 2 'gree w/ u that your words r present. And in the present. At least to anyone when they hear or read u

How do we obey God's command? By participating in it, ourselves, in the present?
Yes. Do this in remembrance of Me

Or by only remembering that others did it long ago?
"Do this in remembrance of Me" commands to do it ongoing into the future.
Since Christians, and God's purpose and house, being constituted of, and depending on, His eternal, resurrection, life, is ongoing. Christ is ongoing. God's unstoppable.
Paul taught also "as often as you drink it; For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup" and in His Table "declare the Lord's death until He comes"
1 Cor 11:25-26

What about those of us who don't use a common cup, but use the little, individual ones? What about those of us who use grape juice, instead of wine?
What about 'em?
Those things sound trivial compared to "discerning the body; proving oneself; walk by the Spirit; etc"

And how do we do that with regard to the Eucharist? perhaps by saying the words and doing the acts in the present?
Well, when else would u do it? "Do" iz a present tense verb. U can't "do" things in the past.
In any case: the how is contained in John 4:24. In spirit, and in truthfulness.
"In spirit" means in, and thru, and with, the deepest part of your being. The part where our conscience is (cf 4:16). The part where Christ is (3:6; 2 Tim 4:22; 1 Cor 6:17). "In truthfulness" means w/ Christ as our experience. Since Christ is Truth, and Christ's Spirit is the Spirit of Reality

...(in our time and in our presence). That's anamnesis.
"Anamnesis" is "remembrance." "Remembrance" naturally implies: of the past. Not that remembrance, as a verb, is limited to taking place in the past!
In any case, for a saint, a Christian, a believer into the risen Lord Jesus Christ:
we remember Him by experiencing Him immediately, presently, currently, actively, and now. Becuz He's neither dead nor gone. But instead risen, alive, and immediately everywhere available

And if Christ was present to his disciples in the meal in that time and place, then Christ is also present to we disciples in this time and place.
Absolutely. The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.
He who's joined to the Lord is one spirit.
1 Cor 6:17; 15:45

 

[sojourner]

remember Him by experiencing Him immediately, presently, currently, actively, and now.

That's anamnesis -- pulling an event of the past into the present so that we can experience it immediately, presently, currently, actively, and now.

And since we're pulling the meal forward so we can experience it now, and since the meal was shared with Jesus, then Jesus is truly present in the meal as we experience it now. Sounds like you agree that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.

 

[writer]

That's anamnesis -- pulling an event of the past into the present so that we can experience it immediately, presently, currently, actively, and now.
No. To the contary: Jesus Christ is a person. Not an event.
In addition, as much as remembrance (anamnesis) is "experiencing" the past; objectively-speaking you cannot, nor have any way or therefore need to, literally go back into the past, nor can actual past events travel up to u.
Jesus Christ's not merely in the past. He is He who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty Triune I AM as His Incarnation, Rv 1:8; Jn 8:58; 1:1-2, 14

And since we're pulling the meal forward so we can experience it now,
the Lord Jesus told His disciples "Do this in remembrance of Me."
Not in remembrance of a meal

and since the meal was shared with Jesus, then Jesus is truly present in the meal as we experience it now.
To the contrary: Christ Jesus, who is God, as Spirit, is present to those who seek and believe into Him, anywhere and everywhere, anytime and everytime at least as folks are physically alive, becuz He's risen.
Not because Peter, John, James, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, etc, "shared a meal with Him"

Sounds like you agree that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.
Christ as His Spirit, and in His Spirit, is poured out on all flesh, Ac 2.
Whether he's present to u, me, or anyone, in the sense of our experience, depends on your, my, and their personal faith appropriating Him (Heb 11:6), everytime, anywhere.
Thanx

 

[sojourner]

No. To the contary: Jesus Christ is a person. Not an event.

the Lord Jesus told His disciples "Do this in remembrance of Me."
Not in remembrance of a meal

Not because Peter, John, James, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, etc, "shared a meal with Him"

Jesus Christ is the Meal that we remember. The sharing of his body and blood is the event in which we share in anamnesis.

 

[ApologeticsCatholic]

First off most Non-Catholic Christians are Fundementalists and Belive that the Bible is Fully 100 % truth in that case does Jesus say

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

or was it this

And as they were eating, Jesus took the cracker, and kissed it up to heaven after dropping it on the floor , and broke it , and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is a representation of my body being broken for you

Did Jesus say

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

Pretty sure it was the former, He said a prayer then said :THIS IS MY BODY" "This is my blood" if the bible is 100 % truth then how could he have been speaking metephorically?
Was Jesus Telling a fib? *gasps* O_O

No jesus wasn't he was clearly stating that the bread and wine which you drink is his Body and is his blood, He gave the deciples a "Piece of him"

and answer me this for all the non-catholic Chrisitians Even if You belived that Jesus was only speaking metophorically (even thought that contidicts fundemental beliefs of the bible being literal) then why are some reciting the Last supper in remeberence yet using crackers and Juice? or Oysters and Juice? shouldnt it be Bread and wine? Seriously Asking not knocking on a faith, just curious



"the bread that we eat, is it not the Body of Christ? The cup that we drink, is it not the Blood of Christ?"

 

[rocka21]

First off most Non-Catholic Christians are Fundementalists and Belive that the Bible is Fully 100 % truth in that case does Jesus say

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

or was it this

And as they were eating, Jesus took the cracker, and kissed it up to heaven after dropping it on the floor , and broke it , and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is a representation of my body being broken for you

Did Jesus say

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

Pretty sure it was the former, He said a prayer then said :THIS IS MY BODY" "This is my blood" if the bible is 100 % truth then how could he have been speaking metephorically?
Was Jesus Telling a fib? *gasps* O_O

No jesus wasn't he was clearly stating that the bread and wine which you drink is his Body and is his blood, He gave the deciples a "Piece of him"

and answer me this for all the non-catholic Chrisitians Even if You belived that Jesus was only speaking metophorically (even thought that contidicts fundemental beliefs of the bible being literal) then why are some reciting the Last supper in remeberence yet using crackers and Juice? or Oysters and Juice? shouldnt it be Bread and wine? Seriously Asking not knocking on a faith, just curious



"the bread that we eat, is it not the Body of Christ? The cup that we drink, is it not the Blood of Christ?"

first off, i think your way off base. There are MANY "types" in the bible not just the last supper. Yes i think the bible is the word of God, but the Holy Ghost will help trasnslate, not some pope, council, or gathering of men. They don't have to be the Holy Ghost for me, I can read and pray for an understanding. I believe some things i won't understand until i get to heaven.

when i do take communion, i do it as a "type", in remembrance of the covenant he made. Bye the way, why do i have to take communion EVERY time i go to church? o yeah, ( council of trendy! 1242), why don't i eat meat on friday ( st. padre pio 657),

and how about this one?
5THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

How come this priest had a wife but your priest can't have one?
</IMG>

 

[ApologeticsCatholic]

how about this in the bible, when the apostles went to spread the word Good news and Babtise (the whole house--includig the children) they broke bread and drank wine, EVERYTIME!

The holy ghost will help you translate it? not the church of Peter?
You? and yet not the Pope?
Guess i should come to you for religious advise then huh?

Jesus snt the holy spirit to the apostles, so these humans where able to use the lords name and forgive, and heal in the name of Jesus, he gave them to the apostles and the apostles Did form the hieracrchy of what is now the catholic church. its not interpretation, its tradition and beliefs handed down over centuries by the original followers of Jesus, and sorry to tell you this, HISTORICALLY-PROVEN without a shadow of a doubt that all christian faith stemmed off fromt he catholic church just after the protestant reformation.
So yes i belive in my chirch and there teachings becasue i know my chirch is the church of peter becasue i trust in my faith and how can a fundamentalist who belives in the bible as 100% truth deny the true presence of christ, when Jesus said "this is my body" "this is my blood" you cant tell me the bible is all truth and yet you belive that he wasnt being serious.. that just isnt sensable.. either all things in the bible are truth or there not. and im sure if there is one thing we both can agree on, jesus wasnt a liar, he wasnt a humarist, he wasnt a gesture , he told the truth alwas, so clearly it was his body and blood becasue he said so

 

[writer]

171 the Bible is Fully 100 % truth
thas accurate

in that case does Jesus say And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
or was it this
And as they were eating, Jesus took the cracker, and kissed it up to heaven after dropping it on the floor , and broke it , and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is a representation of my body being broken for you
asked and answered post 163 para 8

Did Jesus say
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
asked and answered post 163 para 8.
In any case, the Lord said both. Nor did they physically drink His blood since His physical blood was poured out in His physical death.
The main problem w/ Catholicism's Judaizing superstition in this regard is that it counters the central revelation and purpose of God in His Trinity in all this which is, after incarnation and crucifixion: to become a life-giving Spirit in resurrection to dispense Himself directly with all He is into His believers' spirit thru faith

Pretty sure it was the former, He said a prayer then said :THIS IS MY BODY" "This is my blood" if the bible is 100 % truth then how could he have been speaking metephorically?
cuz symbolism is also truth and truly a part of speech

Was Jesus Telling a fib? *gasps* O_O
Symbolism is not, by definition, a falsehood. Nor's it anymore false, or true, than any other part of speech. Rather, it's Catholicism which teaches a fib in this particular regard by, for whatever Judaizing-type reason, atttemptin to deny obvious, and only, symbolism

No jesus wasn't he was clearly stating that the bread and wine which you drink is his Body and is his blood,
Just as clearly as if He showed a photo of Himself and said This is Me.
We're agreed on the matter of clarity

He gave the deciples a "Piece of him"
By regeneration by the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ's disciples themselves, including me, are pieces of Him, Romans 12:5; 1 Peter 1:3, 23; 2 P 1:4; John 20:22; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17

Even if You belived that Jesus was only speaking metophorically (even thought that contidicts fundemental beliefs of the bible being literal)
Metaphors don't contradict literature, including God's Bible. They're part of them!

then why are some reciting the Last supper in remeberence yet using crackers and Juice? or Oysters and Juice?
sorry to say, Christians (and nonchristians) do a lot o' naughty things.
In any case: why not ask 'em? And come 'n tell us when u get a reply?

shouldnt it be Bread and wine?
yes

Seriously Asking not knocking on a faith, just curious
since you're serious: why not ask 'em? And come 'n tell us when they tell u

"the bread that we eat, is it not the Body of Christ? The cup that we drink, is it not the Blood of Christ?"
iz that a deliberate mistranslation of Paul on your, or Catholicism's, part?
"The cup of blessing which we bless, isn't it the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, isn't it the fellowship of the body of Christ [1 Cor 10:16]?"
Yes, if your stand's the same as the apostles' and churches'

 

[Katzpur]

First off most Non-Catholic Christians are Fundementalists and Belive that the Bible is Fully 100 % truth

Nonsense. Millions of non-Catholic Christians are not Bible literalists.

in that case does Jesus say...

Take, eat; this is my body. or was it this: Take, eat; this is a representation of my body being broken for you

Did Jesus say

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

Pretty sure it was the former, He said a prayer then said :THIS IS MY BODY" "This is my blood" if the bible is 100 % truth then how could he have been speaking metephorically?

Those of us who are both non-Catholic and not Bible literalists believe the statement to be a metaphor. There are metaphors throughout the Bible. How do you determine what is metaphor and what is not?

 

[writer]

173 how about this in the bible, when the apostles went to spread the word Good news and Babtise (the whole house--includig the children)...
children may be able to believe, at times. It's "baby baptism" that's not baptism

they broke bread and drank wine, EVERYTIME!
amen!

The holy ghost will help you translate it? not the church of Peter?
Peter, like all other believers into God's Son, is member of the Body of God's Son. Not "member of the Body of Peter"

You? and yet not the Pope?
Guess i should come to you for religious advise then huh?
Depends on who your "you" iz

Jesus snt the holy spirit to the apostles, so these humans where able to use the lords name and forgive, and heal in the name of Jesus, he gave them to the apostles and the apostles Did form the hieracrchy of what is now the catholic church.
To the contrary: apostles are not hierarchy. Nor are they what ever was, or is now, the Catholic Church (upper cases).
Instead: they're apostles

its not interpretation, its tradition and beliefs handed down over centuries by the original followers of Jesus,
If the gentleman's speaking of the falsehood and superstition of "false presence:" that's neither from Christ nor from His original followers

and sorry to tell you this, HISTORICALLY-PROVEN without a shadow of a doubt that all christian faith stemmed off fromt he catholic church just after the protestant reformation.
What a laff, and a falsehood

how can a fundamentalist who belives in the bible as 100% truth deny the true presence of christ, when Jesus said "this is my body" "this is my blood"
Becuz symbols r, and can b, equally true, as nonsymbolic language

you cant tell me the bible is all truth and yet you belive that he wasnt being serious..
I can't believe you consider yourself serious for inventing arguments, or strawmen, to argue against; then attributing them to other posters!
"Jesus is God's Lamb," is a serious symbolism. It's neither false, nor unserious, becuz it's symbolic speech.
Jesus Christ duzn't have a tail, nor white wool covering His body.
Seriously

 

[Katzpur]

sorry to tell you this, HISTORICALLY-PROVEN without a shadow of a doubt that all christian faith stemmed off fromt he catholic church just after the protestant reformation.

I'm sorry you told us this, too, because it's not true (nor is it historically proven). My faith did not in any way come to be a a result of a split with Catholicism. You need to be more careful about stating that something is "historically proven" when it's not the case.

 

[ApologeticsCatholic]

its surley not the chrisitan faith of the days of Jesus!
the faith didnt even rasise any form of popularity till 1970's

and I have yet to find even one doctrine of that is compatible with Christian doctrine.

When one goes beyond the surface and clearly understands the official LDS meanings of terms borrowed from Christianity.

and furthermore LDS itself is not in the discussion i was referring to Christians in the actual sence "christian" If you want to discuss LDS we can do that too.

 

[Katzpur]

its surley not the chrisitan faith of the days of Jesus!

Well, that's a matter of opinion. In your opinion, it's not. In my opinion, it is.

the faith didnt even rasise any form of popularity till 1970's

Since when did popularity enter in to the equation?

and I have yet to find even one doctrine of that is compatible with Christian doctrine.

Really? Well you haven't looked very closely then. Are you saying that our believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Creator of our Universe, and the only means by which we may be reconciled to God is not compatible with Christian doctrine?

When one goes beyond the surface and clearly understands the official LDS meanings of terms borrowed from Christianity.

Your knowledge of LDS doctrine is clearly superficial, while mine is extensive. That's about all I can say.

and furthermore LDS itself is not in the discussion i was referring to Christians in the actual sence "christian" If you want to discuss LDS we can do that too.

Since I am a Christian, my perspective on this topic is as relevant as any other Christian's.

 

[SB Habakuk]

Even those who Christ spoke the mystery of the Eucharist to are not fully aware of the meaning- How then you PRESUME to know- I tell you- you cannot and will never speak for Christianity or Christian thought