What Is The Purpose Of Taking Communion ?
- Thread starter Hollyrock
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Because Jesus commands us to partake of Him intimately in a very humane method, in the form of unleavened bread and or wine, by which only God Himself could have ever introduced for all of us who are worthy to partake in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity . ------ " For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord , until he comes [ 1 Cor. 11:26 ]
The above verse we can see where Jesus must first sacrifice His Body before we can partake of His Body and ...." proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes "
"Do this in remembrance of me" [ Luke 22:19} also [ John 6: 48-60 ] [ Matt. 26: 26-28 ] [ 1 Cor.10:16 ] [ 1Cor. 11: 27-29 ]
Jesus said" Unless you eat ......... and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day" [ John 6: 54- 55 ] . No symbolism in those Words from Jesus.
The above verse we can see where Jesus must first sacrifice His Body before we can partake of His Body and ...." proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes "
"Do this in remembrance of me" [ Luke 22:19} also [ John 6: 48-60 ] [ Matt. 26: 26-28 ] [ 1 Cor.10:16 ] [ 1Cor. 11: 27-29 ]
Jesus said" Unless you eat ......... and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day" [ John 6: 54- 55 ] . No symbolism in those Words from Jesus.
Usually once a month.
It is a moment to remember what Jesus did giving his body and blood as sacrifice for me.
It is deeply humbling, and makes me deeply appreciative.
The bible says .... "as often as you are gathered together" .... do this in remembrance of me.
Stop and think about that for a minute. Sounds like we should be doing it every time we gather together. I think it would set the proper tone for the meeting.
But most of the time we just think about ourselves and how great we think we are .
Jesus said, "Do this in rememebrance of me" speaking of breaking the bread
He did not say, "Repeatedly sacrifice my body and eat me over and over and over...."
Jesus was sacrificed ONCE for all sins. That apparently isn't enough for some....
He did not say, "Repeatedly sacrifice my body and eat me over and over and over...."
Jesus was sacrificed ONCE for all sins. That apparently isn't enough for some....
The universal priesthood of believers. It unites us all as we (as said above) do it in remembrance of Him.
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth, unless you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
The kind of life that one may obtain by means of correctly dining upon the
Lord's flesh, and correctly imbibing his blood; is eternal life.
†. John 6:54 . .Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life.
Eternal life is impervious to death; so then, once somebody gets it, there's
no need for them to keep coming back to get it again, and again, and again
because eternal life doesn't degenerate, or spoil, or evaporate, or break
down, or corrode, or lose its vitality, or wear out, or run down, or get old
and/or die from disease, accident, crime, or malnutrition: nor does eternal life
have either a shelf life, or an expiration date. Ten million years from today,
eternal life won't be any less fresh than it is right now.
BTW: note the grammatical tense of the Lord's "have" verb in John 6:54. It's
present tense rather than future, indicating that people who correctly dine
upon his flesh, and correctly imbibe his blood, are granted eternal life the
very moment they do so-- no delay, and no waiting period.
Cliff
/
†. John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them: I tell you the truth, unless you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
The kind of life that one may obtain by means of correctly dining upon the
Lord's flesh, and correctly imbibing his blood; is eternal life.
†. John 6:54 . .Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life.
Eternal life is impervious to death; so then, once somebody gets it, there's
no need for them to keep coming back to get it again, and again, and again
because eternal life doesn't degenerate, or spoil, or evaporate, or break
down, or corrode, or lose its vitality, or wear out, or run down, or get old
and/or die from disease, accident, crime, or malnutrition: nor does eternal life
have either a shelf life, or an expiration date. Ten million years from today,
eternal life won't be any less fresh than it is right now.
BTW: note the grammatical tense of the Lord's "have" verb in John 6:54. It's
present tense rather than future, indicating that people who correctly dine
upon his flesh, and correctly imbibe his blood, are granted eternal life the
very moment they do so-- no delay, and no waiting period.
Cliff
/
-- There are millions of Christians the world over who have never partaken in the Catholic version of Communion.
According to the way the Catholics see this scripture, that would have to mean that those Christians "have no life" in them and are thus not saved.
I don't think so...
You bring up very good points Weber.
.
Foreigner, I'll give you something else that apparently you never did learn while being a supposed Catholic.
Since the moment of his death transcends time, to celebrate it in time is not to create another Passion and death; it is to worship him in that very Passion here and now in the concrete manner of his devising. See: www.catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp.
Brother James
Active Member
I take communion at least annually, and weekly when if I can. I do it because Jesus said to do it. God told Moses to teach the Israelites to commemorate what God did for His people by observing the Passover every year. They were told to do this because the next generation would not see what God did for them in Egypt and it was important for them to know their God. On the night before our Lord was taken by the high priest's men, He taught His disciples a new thing on the very occassion of the Passover. The Passover lamb was no longer the sign of how God saved His people. The Lamb of God was the ultimate perfect sacrifice for the whole world, and Jesus told them "do this in rememberance of Me". So instead of Passover, we commemorate what Christ did for us at that time by sharing in His body and His blood that was shed for us by observing communion. And we remember Him.
BTW, I have an observation and it may be totally out of line because I am new here, but there seems to be some dynamic among many here that the most innocent topic proposed descends into taunting, conflict, and harshness. As I say, it might just be me, but as a new participant it appears this way to me.
BTW, I have an observation and it may be totally out of line because I am new here, but there seems to be some dynamic among many here that the most innocent topic proposed descends into taunting, conflict, and harshness. As I say, it might just be me, but as a new participant it appears this way to me.
Brother James , welcome, but it appears you also take the Words of Consecration from Jesus as only in a symbolical manner, so i ask you, why would St.Paul write that it brings much harm to the Christian that takes communion [ Holy Eucharist ] unwortherly , if it were meant to be just a just a symbolical event then why did St. Paul write- see 1 Cor. 11:27-29 ]
Clearly, the Lord in His earthly ministry, was training His disiples to go forth unto His people being baptised with water and fire, and that this manditory Passover was for them to remember what they had seen and heard (the qualifications of an apostle (remember, out of the 'about 120 who beleived', only 2 met the qualifications - see Acts 1)). So it was that these were to remember how His body was broken for them, how His blood was shed for them. Knowing that only the Gospel of John is written to non believers, when we read further about the need to remember these things, Paul is speaking to a group who's Kindom of Promise was near, who could see their calling (by the constant and many miracles whereby every Hebrew person would receive a bonified miracle) and to maintain context, in Hebrews we read that these people have tasted the good word of God and the dunamis (explosive dynamite like powers) of the coming age. So these people were believers who were so close to the coming kingdom, the meeting of the age times, that they could literally see the miracles that were to go forth healing the nations, remembering always their relationship to their messiah, the creator of the OT (& the New) and how as the High Priest He died but once for their sins, His body broken as prophecied in the OT, specifically for them, as they so accuratly asked in Acts 1, the reinstatement of the kingdom promised to them.
Colossians 1:24: "Now I [Paul] rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church."
Paul doesn’t mean that Christ’s death is insufficient for universal redemption. He is simply saying that his own incorporation into the mystical body of Christ (the Church) means that his sufferings can be helpful for other members of the body (the Colossian Christians to whom he is writing). They are helpful only because Paul is united to Christ in his Church and is offering his sufferings to Christ for the sake of the Church.
In the same way, suffering souls can similarly offer up their sufferings for the benefit of others.
Paul doesn’t mean that Christ’s death is insufficient for universal redemption. He is simply saying that his own incorporation into the mystical body of Christ (the Church) means that his sufferings can be helpful for other members of the body (the Colossian Christians to whom he is writing). They are helpful only because Paul is united to Christ in his Church and is offering his sufferings to Christ for the sake of the Church.
In the same way, suffering souls can similarly offer up their sufferings for the benefit of others.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
†. 1Cor 11:27 . . Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the
Lord.
What's he talking about there? Homicide? I seriously doubt it. Christ rose
from the dead immortal so he can't be killed anymore.
†. Rom 6:9 . . Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die
again; death no longer is master over Him.
I'm pretty sure the most anybody can reasonably get out of 1Cor 11:27 is
just simply the sin of sacrilege; which Webster's defines as: gross disrespect
for a hallowed person, place, or thing. Here's a version that best represents
that concept.
"Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy
manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
(NIV)
A footnote in my electronic Catholic Bible interprets this particular sacrilege not
as a homicide, but as a sin against the Lord himself-- in other words: a personal
insult. (cf. 1Cor 8:12)
Note : it's interesting that Christ at one time was subject to death right
along with the rest of mankind; and that can only be because he was
imputed a share in Adam's indiscretion.
†. Rom 5:12 . .Through one man sin entered into the world, and death
through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.
"all sinned" is in the grammatical past tense indicating that the forbidden
fruit incident made a sinner out of the Lord just as effectively as it made
sinners out everybody else.
†. Rom 5:19 . . through the one man's disobedience; the many were made
sinners
The punishment for tasting the forbidden fruit is limited to one's earthly
demise; so nobody is danger of going to hell for it; viz: when the Lord
died on the cross, justice was satisfied and the fruit was expunged from
his record-- and since he never committed any sins of his own to answer
for; Jesus is no danger of the second death depicted at Rev 20:10-15.
Cliff
/
†. 1Cor 11:27 . . Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the
Lord.
What's he talking about there? Homicide? I seriously doubt it. Christ rose
from the dead immortal so he can't be killed anymore.
†. Rom 6:9 . . Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die
again; death no longer is master over Him.
I'm pretty sure the most anybody can reasonably get out of 1Cor 11:27 is
just simply the sin of sacrilege; which Webster's defines as: gross disrespect
for a hallowed person, place, or thing. Here's a version that best represents
that concept.
"Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy
manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
(NIV)
A footnote in my electronic Catholic Bible interprets this particular sacrilege not
as a homicide, but as a sin against the Lord himself-- in other words: a personal
insult. (cf. 1Cor 8:12)
Note : it's interesting that Christ at one time was subject to death right
along with the rest of mankind; and that can only be because he was
imputed a share in Adam's indiscretion.
†. Rom 5:12 . .Through one man sin entered into the world, and death
through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.
"all sinned" is in the grammatical past tense indicating that the forbidden
fruit incident made a sinner out of the Lord just as effectively as it made
sinners out everybody else.
†. Rom 5:19 . . through the one man's disobedience; the many were made
sinners
The punishment for tasting the forbidden fruit is limited to one's earthly
demise; so nobody is danger of going to hell for it; viz: when the Lord
died on the cross, justice was satisfied and the fruit was expunged from
his record-- and since he never committed any sins of his own to answer
for; Jesus is no danger of the second death depicted at Rev 20:10-15.
Cliff
/
Brother James
Active Member
The book of 1 Corinthians was written by Paul to a specific church that was engaging in grave error. They were the intended audience of Paul's corrections, even though we all learn from it. Regarding the Lord's supper in 1 Cor. 11, if you begin reading at verse 17 you get a good picture of the extent of Paul's concern for their practices. Some were turned away hungry while others got drunk at the "feasts" that were supposed to be the Lord's supper. I suspect that the bad behavior Paul cited was what he meant when he warned them not to partake unworthily. It certainly did not mean what many claim. You cannot just take a verse from one of the epistles and craft it to mean what you're trying to support. You have to understand it in the context of what the writer meant to communicate to his intended audience.
We should receive communion in the reflective manner it was intended, remembering what it means, when Jesus instituted it, and why. Jesus Himself said it was for rememberance. It was the replacement for the Passover and the Lamb of God replaced a baby sheep.
The elements of communion were not Jesus' body and blood when He held them up in front of His disciples. He had not yet died. He was standing physically before them. It is not plausible that they would have thought the living Jesus was telling then that they were eating his actual flesh and blood because his body was as yet unbroken. It would not have made sense to them.
We should receive communion in the reflective manner it was intended, remembering what it means, when Jesus instituted it, and why. Jesus Himself said it was for rememberance. It was the replacement for the Passover and the Lamb of God replaced a baby sheep.
The elements of communion were not Jesus' body and blood when He held them up in front of His disciples. He had not yet died. He was standing physically before them. It is not plausible that they would have thought the living Jesus was telling then that they were eating his actual flesh and blood because his body was as yet unbroken. It would not have made sense to them.
Sorry Cliff, but your exegesis of Scripture doesn't cut it.Jesus was born sinless.
But that is exactly what they thought , because Jesus actually was telling them that He would offer His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity to eat in the form of bread and wine, and then at that moment they no longer walked with Jesus, because they 'Did Believe' it. But they as you and others today also do not believe in those Words from Jesus when He said : " Verily, verily, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shalt not have life in you " [ John 6:54 ]
" The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the sharing of the blood of Christ ? And the bread that we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord." [ 1 Cor. 10:16 ]
Brother James
Active Member
I have discussed this with many Catholic friends. I am well aware of the Church's teaching on this. I understand the verses of scripture they use to support their position. I understand how they interpret those verses, and I understand that Catholics must accept their church's interpretation of scripture. I simply disagree based upon my plain understanding of exegesis and what I read. Of course we, as believers, share in His blood. That is how we are saved, by His blood.
God bless you Brother James but there is only One correct Interpretation of Scripture and the Church that compiled the completed Bible knew the correct Interpretation so as with the help of the HS gave us the correct Canonical Books of the NTwhich is accepted by all, including all non-Catholic Christians as being the inerrant Word of God.
I was always a little scared to take Communion because my former church always stressed how near perfect we had to be to take it, otherwise something bad could happen to us. And if I am honest,I still have some of that same fear.
-- Oh, I learned exactly what the Catholic church teaches about Communion. Thankfully, I was wise enough to realize they were wrong.
-- Jesus said, "This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in memory of me."
You can't have it both ways. If he was talking about eating his actual body and blood, then you have to accept that to do so, that body must be broken.
That means He is being sacrificed time and time again.
But what it comes down to is this:
1. The Catholic church teaches that if you do not partake in their version of Communion, you are not saved.
2. Millions of Christians the world over do not partake in the Catholic's definition of Communion.
3. Since those Christians - if they truly gave their hearts to Jesus - are indeed saved, the Catholic "inspired requirement" for salvation is null and void.
4. Catholics refuse to accept this irrefutable fact.
Similar threads
