Right Divider
Body part
I'm not going to go off on all of your tangents until you address what I already wrote.
Do you still not understand the symbolism in Matthew 26:26-29?
ECT The Eucharist - John Chapter 6
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
Do you still not understand the symbolism in Matthew 26:26-29?
jsanford108
New member
My questions are not tangents. They are in John 6, which is the passage/topic of the discussion.
What symbolism? Just come out and say which part is symbolic. The wine is wine. At no point is it symbolic. Fruit of the vine = wine. No symbolism. "He took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples," still no symbolism.
"Take eat; this is My Body." This is the first point at which one could even suggest symbolism. Yet, there is no clarification or distinction made by Christ, nor the author of the Gospel, that this was symbolic. Any time that Christ was being symbolic or metaphorical, it is clearly revealed or expounded upon as such. For example, in John 2:19, when Christ says "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews say "It has taken 46 years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" John immediately clarifies the statement with "But He spoke of the temple of His Body. When therefore He was raised from the dead...." (Notice no such clarification is given in the Last Supper accounts, nor John 6's Eucharistic passages). So why, would no Gospel writer give this clarification of symbolic metaphor, when they have done so every single time that Christ spoke in such a manner?
Back to Matthew 26; "For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." If one part of this is symbolic, then the whole of it must be. If Christ's Blood is symbolic, how is it symbolically poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins? We know that Christ literally poured out His Blood for our forgiveness, right? So, His Blood must logically be literal, not metaphorical, in this passage. It makes no logical sense to switch back and forth between metaphor and literal meanings for "Blood."
So, logically, with knowledge of internal examples of clarification by the Gospel writers, it only stands to reason that Christ was speaking literally, not metaphorically.
Now, back to those questions you seem to be avoiding, despite their relevance to the conversation, taken directly from John 6.
1.) How is Christ's body and blood "true food and drink?"
2.) Why did the disciples leave Christ, if He was being symbolic? It clearly says that they thought He was being literal.
Right Divider
Body part
Do you think that Matthew 26:26-29 is completely unrelated to John 6?
I'm now totally impressed with your total denseness.
Jesus called the wine "my blood" and yet you cannot see the symbolism?
Jesus gave them bread and called it "my body" and yet you cannot see the symbolism?
jsanford108
New member
Of course I think it is related. It is the Institution of the Eucharist. I never said it wasn't related. I said that my "tangents" were on topic, thus, not "tangents."
So point out, using my words in post #62, how I was being illogical/wrong. Then, while you are at it, address the questions I posited to you.
Right Divider
Body part
Since you cannot understand that calling the wine "my blood" is symbolism, I'm done trying to communicate with you.
jsanford108
New member
You haven't offered any logical proofs for your position. Just saying "it is symbolic," doesn't make it so.
It also appears that you are avoiding Scriptural evidence, as well as questions, which disprove your position.
Right Divider
Body part
Once again, if you cannot see that calling WINE "my BLOOD" is symbolic, then you have no idea what symbolic means.
jsanford108
New member
Prove it.
And if you think the point is moot, then just answer two questions in order to progress the conversation.
1.) How is Christ's body and blood "true food and drink?"
2.) Why did the disciples leave Christ, if He was being symbolic? It clearly says that they thought He was being literal.
Here is another thing to consider: If it is symbolic, why does Paul stress, in 1 Corinthians 11:29, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body"? If it is a symbol, how can one "not discern the Lord's body?" How can one unworthily eat and drink a symbol, to the point of damnation?
Right Divider
Body part
You have a problem with understanding even the simplest of things.
Yep.
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Of course, some are so poor at the most basic of word comprehension, that words like "ordinances" and "traditions" right away throws them off (for their obvious failure to study out all words in-depth).
Rom. 5:8.
Patrick Cronin
New member
Regarding the statement by dan p that there is no Greek word for the eucharist, he should see Matthew 26:27 where that exact Greek verb(ευχαριστησας)(eucharistesas)is used: "Then He took a cup and AFTER GIVING THANKS He gave it to them saying 'drink from this all of you for this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". The same Greek word is found in Mark 14:23 and Luke 22:17. The title "thanksgiving"(eucharist)was the name used by early Christians for the covenant meal,(Acts 2:46) which was also called "the breaking of the bread" because that is what Jesus did at the last supper in the institution of the eucharist."Then He took a loaf of bread and when He had given thanks HE BROKE IT and gave it to them..."(Luke 22:19)(Luke 24:34)
Hi and when looking for a Greek word for EUCHARIST can not be found !
Looking up the Greek text for Matt 26:27 you found a Greek word EUCHARISTEO which means to be grateful, feel thankful , or give thanks !!
Here is what we should know of Matt 26:27 , IT IS FOR ISRAEL ONLY and that is the Context !!
The Greek word GIVE THANKS / EUCHARISTEO is in the Greek AORIST TENSE , and in the ACTIVE VOICE and a PARTICIPLE !!
The AORIST TENSE is a ONE TIME EVENT that is done by Jesus ONLY and verse 19 says it is for the PASSOVER proves it is for Jewish !!
Are you a Jew ??
Verse 29 says that it will NEVER be an EVENT , untl that day I drink with YOU in my Father's Kingdom and that means it is ALL FUTURE !!
dan p
Once more, you fail to discern between a generic principle - here; the generic principle of thanks or gratitude - and the particularly Dispensational aspect.
Besides, what language was that originally written in?
To this very day, Greeks use the word principle ευχαριστώ or efcharisto (thank you).
Right steko - "neh-neh" lol
Rom. 5:8.
Lol - find the word "maybe" in Scripture, Mr "if it is not used by Scripture" you "don't acknowledge it as a sound word..." or what have you :chuckle:
Rom. 5:8.
Hi and you will find this Greek word " MAY BE " in the bible in the following books !!
1 Cor 14:10 and is translated " PERHAPS " and in the Greek is TYGCHANO , see G5177 in Strongs !!
In Matt 6:4 MAY BE / O see G55600 !!
In John 14:3 same as Matt 6:4 !!
In John 17:11 same Greek word as above "O" !!
You will never find MAY BE the STRONG"S or the new VINE'S dictionary , but my Old Vine's had it !!
You never did say what KIND of HYBRID you are or are you ASHAMED to say ??
I am and Pauline Acts 9:6 no HYBRID'S HERE !!
dan p
Was ridin ya, on that; as I am well aware of those words.
And no hybrid on my part, here, bro.
The hybrids I refer to are those on here who mix Acts 28 conclusions with Acts 9 findings.
Said hybrids on here claim that Paul preached one gospel in Acts and a different in one after Acts 28.
Said hybrids on here claim that the Romans were not saved; that the Jews in Romans 2 are the Romans; that the mystery in Romans 16:25 was hidden in the OT; that the Galatians were part of some promise the rest of the Body is not; and so forth and so on - they assert all kinds of errors.
Theirs is a hybrid, fusion, or mixing together, of how Acts 9 studies things out, with how the Acts 28ers do.
They call themswlves "MAD."
But they are not. Theirs is clearly an Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid.
I continue to find their obvious study approach both fascinating, and a bit off.
They, of course, get a bit upset about having their errors pointed out to them.
Worse, whenever I call out their lack of grace towards anyone who disagrees with their errors :chuckle:
Rom. 5:8.
The irony.
God's Truth
New member
Catholic Influence Demolished
Catholic Influence Demolished
Real Blood and Body in the wafer
Here are scriptures to show that there is not real presence in the bread and wine. John 6:60-64. Catholics believe that the priest can turn wafers into Jesus’ real body. A special box holds these wafers, the supposed body of Christ. There is even a service called Adoration, whereas parishioners can come to church, sit, and pray near the box of wafers, that box that they believe has the real body of Jesus. Catholics believe they can turn wine into the blood of Jesus. Jesus died once—on the cross, and the blood of Jesus shed once—on the cross. Jesus is not in a wafer. No one is turning the wafer into the body of Christ. No one is turning wine into Jesus’ blood.
Catholics believe that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, a sacrifice every Mass where the priest turns the wafers into Jesus’ body. Catholics believe they are experiencing a miracle when the priest does this. No wonder Catholic teachings are that missing a Mass is sin. However, read what the word of God says. The word of God tells us that Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb. In the Old Testament day after day every priest performs his religious duties again and again, offering the same sacrifices. However, when Jesus offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, see Hebrews 10:12. Did you hear that? Jesus offered for ALL time ONE SACRIFICE for sins. Jesus is not in a wafer, he is at the right hand of the Father.
By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy, see Hebrews 10:14. By “one sacrifice,” not a daily or weekly sacrifice of turning the wafers into the body of Christ, over and over again, by many priests all over the world.
We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, see Hebrews 10:10. How hard is that for anyone to understand that we have been made holy THROUGH the BODY of Jesus Christ ONCE for all?
Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself, see Hebrews 9:24-26. Jesus has appeared ONCE for ALL, not again and again in a wafer.
Catholic Influence Demolished
Real Blood and Body in the wafer
Here are scriptures to show that there is not real presence in the bread and wine. John 6:60-64. Catholics believe that the priest can turn wafers into Jesus’ real body. A special box holds these wafers, the supposed body of Christ. There is even a service called Adoration, whereas parishioners can come to church, sit, and pray near the box of wafers, that box that they believe has the real body of Jesus. Catholics believe they can turn wine into the blood of Jesus. Jesus died once—on the cross, and the blood of Jesus shed once—on the cross. Jesus is not in a wafer. No one is turning the wafer into the body of Christ. No one is turning wine into Jesus’ blood.
Catholics believe that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, a sacrifice every Mass where the priest turns the wafers into Jesus’ body. Catholics believe they are experiencing a miracle when the priest does this. No wonder Catholic teachings are that missing a Mass is sin. However, read what the word of God says. The word of God tells us that Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb. In the Old Testament day after day every priest performs his religious duties again and again, offering the same sacrifices. However, when Jesus offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, see Hebrews 10:12. Did you hear that? Jesus offered for ALL time ONE SACRIFICE for sins. Jesus is not in a wafer, he is at the right hand of the Father.
By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy, see Hebrews 10:14. By “one sacrifice,” not a daily or weekly sacrifice of turning the wafers into the body of Christ, over and over again, by many priests all over the world.
We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, see Hebrews 10:10. How hard is that for anyone to understand that we have been made holy THROUGH the BODY of Jesus Christ ONCE for all?
Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself, see Hebrews 9:24-26. Jesus has appeared ONCE for ALL, not again and again in a wafer.