Do you do this?

[Marymog]

In Luke 22:19 Jesus says to “Do this in remembrance of me”. Later on in Luke 24:30 He did with his disciples what he was asking us to do. When He did it their eyes were opened.

In John 6:53 He tells us Verily, verily if we don’t do it we have no life in us. We all know the power of the words Verily, verily when Jesus proclaims it!

Lest we forget what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 10:16–17. Paul was taught by the Apostles and he knew when he did what Jesus commanded him to do that he was sharing in the body of Christ. Paul later goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 if you do this in an unworthy manner YOU will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord further saying all who do this without discerning the body eat and drink judgment against themselves. In Acts 20:7 we find out that Paul and his fellow Christians did what Jesus asked us to do on the first day of the week.

In the Didache (1st century writing) it is written that they did this in remembrance of Him. They taught that no one should do this unless they that have been baptized and they said that what they were sharing/doing was Holy. (Do not give what is holy to the dogs)

Late first and early 2nd century historical Roman writings accuse the Christians of being cannibals because they did this, just like Jesus commanded them to do.

A student of the Apostle John, Ignatius of Antioch, became upset that some of the Christians of his time weren’t doing what Jesus commanded they do. He was taught that by NOT doing this they were denying a gift from God (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6).

My question is: Do you do this in remembrance of Him? How often? If you don’t then I am curious why you don’t? Do you have any scriptural justification for NOT doing it? Will one not go to heaven if they don’t do it?

IHS....Mary

 

[amadeus]

@Marymog

We eat for our carnal bodies meat and potatoes [or McDonald's junk] and drink on water [or pop or coffee] three times daily plus snacks if we are able to get them and then some. So that's being a good steward of the flesh given by God to each of us.

You are speaking of the new or inner man. How can we do less for that new man than we do for the man of flesh?

Remember three times a day plus snacks for the old so at least as much for the new. And I really work hard to do just exactly that. When God helps me I really do it.

 

[Helen]

@Marymog I "eat and drink" daily of the Lord's flesh and blood...I draw on His Life and I eat of His Word daily...
But I am guessing you are speaking of the physical symbols that His life represents.
Then my answer would be..." Now and again"...but not as a ritual.

 

[Marymog]

@Marymog I "eat and drink" daily of the Lord's flesh and blood...I draw on His Life and I eat of His Word daily...
But I am guessing you are speaking of the physical symbols that His life represents.
Then my answer would be..." Now and again"...but not as a ritual.

Thank you BG.

I don't think the bread (Eucharist) is a "symbol" since He said it was His body. He seemed to be speaking literally about it on MULTIPLE occasions AND some disciples walked away because they took His words literally AND Paul took it literally AND, as pointed out in my OP the 1st century Christians took His words literally since they were accused by the Romans of being cannibals.

Maybe I am reading to much into your use of the word "symbols"....I tend to do that ;)

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Marymog]

@Marymog

We eat for our carnal bodies meat and potatoes [or McDonald's junk] and drink on water [or pop or coffee] three times daily plus snacks if we are able to get them and then some. So that's being a good steward of the flesh given by God to each of us.

You are speaking of the new or inner man. How can we do less for that new man than we do for the man of flesh?

Remember three times a day plus snacks for the old so at least as much for the new. And I really work hard to do just exactly that. When God helps me I really do it.

No, I'm not speaking of the new or inner man.

Thank you for your input though.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Helen]

Thank you BG.

I don't think the bread (Eucharist) is a "symbol" since He said it was His body. He seemed to be speaking literally about it on MULTIPLE occasions AND some disciples walked away because they took His words literally AND Paul took it literally AND, as pointed out in my OP the 1st century Christians took His words literally since they were accused by the Romans of being cannibals.

Maybe I am reading to much into your use of the word "symbols"....I tend to do that ;)

Respectfully, Mary

Okay...that is what I thought you would say.
You in your small corner and I in mine. :)

 

[amadeus]

No, I'm not speaking of the new or inner man.

Thank you for your input though.

Respectfully, Mary

Who do you suppose is to be eating his flesh and drinking his blood? Certainly not the old man!

 

[Marymog]

Okay...that is what I thought you would say.
You in your small corner and I in mine. :)

Thank you BG.

I am just repeating scripture and historical writings. It is not what I said, it is what Jesus said and the 1st Century Christians practiced.

I am encouraged that you "Now and again" do what He told us to do. Some don't do it at all.

I am discouraged that you were unable to articulate a defense of your symbol statement. I like to hear what other people believe and how they came to their conclusion.

Once again....Thank you for your time.

IHS...Mary

 

[Marymog]

Who do you suppose is to be eating his flesh and drinking his blood? Certainly not the old man!

Hi Amadeus,

Your question is a bit confusing to me so I will answer it the best I can.

I suppose Christians are eating His flesh and drinking His blood.....Just like he told us to do: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

I suppose those Christians, old men included, do it because He told us Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

I hope that answers your question. BTW....Would you like to TRY to answer the questions I posed in the OP?

IHS...Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

No, I'm not speaking of the new or inner man.

no kidding, wadr

 

[bbyrd009]

I am discouraged that you were unable to articulate a defense of your symbol statement. I like to hear what other people believe and how they came to their conclusion.

"eat and drink ______" has a pretty universal definition, seems to me.

 

[bbyrd009]

.Just like he told us to do:

this assumes that the ears are hearing the right thing, when tares are psychoactive and impair the hearing though, see.

 

[ScottA]

In Luke 22:19 Jesus says to “Do this in remembrance of me”. Later on in Luke 24:30 He did with his disciples what he was asking us to do. When He did it their eyes were opened.

In John 6:53 He tells us Verily, verily if we don’t do it we have no life in us. We all know the power of the words Verily, verily when Jesus proclaims it!

Lest we forget what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 10:16–17. Paul was taught by the Apostles and he knew when he did what Jesus commanded him to do that he was sharing in the body of Christ. Paul later goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 if you do this in an unworthy manner YOU will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord further saying all who do this without discerning the body eat and drink judgment against themselves. In Acts 20:7 we find out that Paul and his fellow Christians did what Jesus asked us to do on the first day of the week.

In the Didache (1st century writing) it is written that they did this in remembrance of Him. They taught that no one should do this unless they that have been baptized and they said that what they were sharing/doing was Holy. (Do not give what is holy to the dogs)

Late first and early 2nd century historical Roman writings accuse the Christians of being cannibals because they did this, just like Jesus commanded them to do.

A student of the Apostle John, Ignatius of Antioch, became upset that some of the Christians of his time weren’t doing what Jesus commanded they do. He was taught that by NOT doing this they were denying a gift from God (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6).

My question is: Do you do this in remembrance of Him? How often? If you don’t then I am curious why you don’t? Do you have any scriptural justification for NOT doing it? Will one not go to heaven if they don’t do it?

IHS....Mary

Paul clarified the timing, as follows:

1 Corinthians 11:25
In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

...But it is important to understand that the practice is not a magic key to the kingdom, but just as all ceremonial practices, it points to what is actually required. What this points to is not the need to perform the ceremony, but to take part in the spiritual meaning of His body and His blood, which is: In order to be a part of the body of Christ we must participate in being His body, by allowing Him to come into us, i.e., "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." Therefore, if we continue to live in self-identity, we do not have Christ, nor are we a part of His body or of Him (as He said).

As for His blood, this spiritually represents the Life that flows through Him, which is the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit does not come upon any, but only upon "the only Begotten", whom is Christ. Thus, we must hear Him knock and let Him in (making us apart of His body, then loose our life, that we may gain it in Him), then He will send the Holy Spirit to His own body.

As for the ceremony, we do this that future generation can do likewise...not for ceremony sake alone.

 

[Marymog]

Paul clarified the timing, as follows:

1 Corinthians 11:25
In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

...But it is important to understand that the practice is not a magic key to the kingdom, but just as all ceremonial practices, it points to what is actually required. What this points to is not the need to perform the ceremony, but to take part in the spiritual meaning of His body and His blood, which is: In order to be a part of the body of Christ we must participate in being His body, by allowing Him to come into us, i.e., "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." Therefore, if we continue to live in self-identity, we do not have Christ, nor are we a part of His body or of Him (as He said).

As for His blood, this spiritually represents the Life that flows through Him, which is the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit does not come upon any, but only upon "the only Begotten", whom is Christ. Thus, we must hear Him knock and let Him in (making us apart of His body, then loose our life, that we may gain it in Him), then He will send the Holy Spirit to His own body.

As for the ceremony, we do this that future generation can do likewise...not for ceremony sake alone.

Hi Scott,

Thank you for your insight.

I agree with you. It alone is not a "magic key to the kingdom". It is ONE of many things Jesus asked/told us to do to be saved; baptism, keep the commandments, faith, love one another etc etc. None of those ONE things is the "magic key" if you do them alone.

Galatians 2 talks about circumcision and THE LAW of it and Paul opposing Peter to his face. At no point is there a discussion about bread and wine in Galatians 2.

Even though at no point does Paul talk about bread and wine in Galatians 2:20 it does reflect Jesus words in John 6:53 in the bread of life discourse where Jesus said unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Paul later then re-affirmed what Jesus said when he said "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." Perhaps Paul was referring to receiving the bread and wine since he was a recent convert? Re-affirming what Jesus said and the other Apostles taught was his job. ;)

Why do you think Paul would say what he said in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 if he DIDN'T take Jesus words literally? Paul doesn't seem to believe as you believe that the blood represents "spiritually...the Life that flows through Him". Paul makes it pretty darn clear that you bring judgment upon yourself if you don't recognize it as his body and blood. Just like the 1st century Christians practiced and believed.

Why do you think the 1st century Christians called the bread/wine Holy and were accused of being cannibals if they didn't take/practice it literally?

IHS...Mary

 

[Wormwood]

Thank you BG.

I don't think the bread (Eucharist) is a "symbol" since He said it was His body. He seemed to be speaking literally about it on MULTIPLE occasions AND some disciples walked away because they took His words literally AND Paul took it literally AND, as pointed out in my OP the 1st century Christians took His words literally since they were accused by the Romans of being cannibals.

Maybe I am reading to much into your use of the word "symbols"....I tend to do that ;)

Respectfully, Mary

Marymog,

I have to disagree with you on your position. First, for clarification, I don't think the Romans comment should be taken to mean the early Christians "literally" thought they were eating Jesus' body. I mean, after all, the Romans also accused the Christians of being "atheists" since they didn't worship idols. Clearly these were claims meant to discredit these believers and should not be interpreted as accurate reflections of their beliefs.

Second, the NT clearly points out (as does Jesus, himself) that this is to be done "in remembrance." I don't read anywhere that this is done for salvation or to ingest Christ's eternal life. The Catholic position on this is derived much more from Aristotle than the NT Scriptures (in my opinion). The taking of the Lord's Supper is a regular reminder of Christ's sacrifice and the new covenant to which we belong. I take communion every week, but I do it as a "reminder" of God's grace and not as a means to receive God's grace.

Finally, one of the primary differences between Catholics and many Protestants is the sacramental approach to grace. The Catholic Church teaches that grace comes through the Church and that in order to be saved, one must receive that grace through God's appointed clergy and the appointed means (sacraments, i.e. attending Mass, infant baptism, Eucharist, Confession, etc). Many Protestants turned from this understanding that the hierarchy of the Church holds the keys to God's grace and salvation and believe God's grace comes by faith. This is why Martin Luther emphasized the "solas". Faith alone, Grace alone, Scriptures alone...etc. This does not mean that we ONLY need the Scriptures, but it is to say that we do not need the Scriptures + the official Church interpretation....or Faith + official Church sacraments.

Maybe we are right and maybe not. But the point is, there is a fundamental difference in our understanding of how we receive God's grace. We believe it is by faith, whereas it seems you hold to the position that it comes through the Church. I hope that clarifies things.

 

[Helen]

@Wormwood and @ScottA Good posts.

 

[ScottA]

It alone is not a "magic key to the kingdom". It is ONE of many things Jesus asked/told us to do to be saved; baptism, keep the commandments, faith, love one another etc etc. None of those ONE things is the "magic key" if you do them alone.

These are not things to do "to be saved." But like any other "practice", it is only "practice" for that which does save, which is belief in Jesus.

Why do you think Paul would say what he said in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 if he DIDN'T take Jesus words literally? Paul doesn't seem to believe as you believe that the blood represents "spiritually...the Life that flows through Him". Paul makes it pretty darn clear that you bring judgment upon yourself if you don't recognize it as his body and blood. Just like the 1st century Christians practiced and believed.

Same answer. The "practice" was ingrained in order to carry the "message" of "belief" in Christ forward to coming generations. This sort of thing is true of many things, such as marriage: the marriage "practice" of a man and a woman is not a marriage to the Son, but only portrays it. And for this reason, the "practice" has been handed down from generation to generation.

Why do you think the 1st century Christians called the bread/wine Holy and were accused of being cannibals if they didn't take/practice it literally?

Again, the "practice" being declared holy does not make it holy. But it is what it is a "practice" of, that makes it holy. It would have been better for them to teach as in days of old, that it was not a holy practice, but rather a "sacred" practice unto the Lord.

 

[Helen]

Excellent post @ScottA Nice and clear.

 

[Marymog]

Marymog,

I have to disagree with you on your position. First, for clarification, I don't think the Romans comment should be taken to mean the early Christians "literally" thought they were eating Jesus' body. I mean, after all, the Romans also accused the Christians of being "atheists" since they didn't worship idols. Clearly these were claims meant to discredit these believers and should not be interpreted as accurate reflections of their beliefs.

Second, the NT clearly points out (as does Jesus, himself) that this is to be done "in remembrance." I don't read anywhere that this is done for salvation or to ingest Christ's eternal life. The Catholic position on this is derived much more from Aristotle than the NT Scriptures (in my opinion). The taking of the Lord's Supper is a regular reminder of Christ's sacrifice and the new covenant to which we belong. I take communion every week, but I do it as a "reminder" of God's grace and not as a means to receive God's grace.

Hi and thank you for articulating your position. You are right. It is historically accurate that the Romans accused the Christians of being atheist, however, as we know, they weren’t atheist. The Romans made this accusation because the Christians didn’t worship the Roman gods. Therefor the accusation was clearly a false accusation not based on any evidence or any proclamation that the Christians made. The false accusation was based on what the Romans practiced and preached and completely OPPOSITE of what the Christians actually practiced.

The cannibalism accusation WAS based on what the Christians practiced, proclaimed and preached in secret: They believed the bread/wine that they consumed in those secret meetings were His body/blood, just like He said. However, the ritual was misunderstood by the Romans 2,000 years ago and it is still misunderstood today.

The cannibalism accusation WAS based on what Jesus said; : I am the bread of life....so that one may eat of it and not die. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.....the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh......eat this bread for this is My body. Drink from the cup.....for this is My blood etc. etc

The accusation WAS based on the aforementioned words that Paul said and Paul was taught by the Apostles.

The accusation WAS based on what the early Christians practiced. How do we know what they practiced? The Didache, believed to have been written BEFORE some books of the bible, mirrors the teachings of scripture.

The accusation WAS based on what Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons said/wrote. What they wrote mirrors the teachings in scripture and the Didache.

In summary: The atheist accusation is NOT equal to the cannibalism accusation BECAUSE the atheist accusation is NOT based on the actual practices and beliefs of the Christians. The cannibalism accusation IS based on the actual practices, beliefs and writings of Scripture and the 1st century Christians. Did you know he early Christians were also accused of eating infants? Which means the Romans LITARALLY thought they were cannibals.

What is the accusation still today; 2,000 years later? Even on this website? Anyone who believes in the Real Presence is practicing cannibalism. Clearly these claims are meant to discredit us believers who still believe (2,000 years later) what Jesus said what Paul taught and the 1st Century Christians practiced/preached/believed. I believe I am in good company of these men and women. I will stick with THEM, not the 500 year old teaching opposite of what they said.

Martin Luther believed in The Real Presence. Was he right about the Sola's and not about The Real Presence?

Jesus said to do this in remembrance of me. You practice that part every week; I support that action. Since you never made it clear if you believe the communion you receive is OR isn't His body I have one BIG question: How do you justify practicing and believing His words of doing it in remembrance of Him but you don’t believe the other words he said before that in the same sentence: “This IS my body”? How do you accept and practice one statement He made, but not the other? (you left me with the impression you don't think it is His body/blood)

In an effort to keep this discussion focused on the subject matter I will not delve into the other topics you brought up (ingest Christ's eternal life, sacramental approach to grace). If you want to start another discussion on those subjects I will gladly join you.

IHS...Mary

 

[Marymog]

These are not things to do "to be saved." But like any other "practice", it is only "practice" for that which does save, which is belief in Jesus.
Same answer. The "practice" was ingrained in order to carry the "message" of "belief" in Christ forward to coming generations. This sort of thing is true of many things, such as marriage: the marriage "practice" of a man and a woman is not a marriage to the Son, but only portrays it. And for this reason, the "practice" has been handed down from generation to generation.
Again, the "practice" being declared holy does not make it holy. But it is what it is a "practice" of, that makes it holy. It would have been better for them to teach as in days of old, that it was not a holy practice, but rather a "sacred" practice unto the Lord.

You equated the “practice” of marriage to Paul's words about receiving Jesus body and blood. I don’t understand how the two equate?

If you are talking about the CEREMONY that is performed during a wedding then I agree that "practice" (ceremony) is ingrained and handed down from generation to generation. It seems to me you are equating the “Do this in remembrance of me” , the Last Supper ceremony, to a marriage ceremony? If you are, that is a false equivalency and here is why:

Scripture does not tell us how to perform a marriage ceremony.

Scripture does tell us, in The Last Supper narrative, how we are to perform a ceremony in remembrance of Him. He taught us how.

So I would like to get back to the original question of which you didn’t answer. I will word the question using the verbiage you have used:

Do you participate in a "practice" that is in remembrance of Him? If you do, does that "practice" include bread and wine? If you don’t, why don’t you?

IHS...Mary