First Things

[selek]

ok...you see this as "do this in rememberence of me"...as symbolic...so this must be symbolic too? "Do this every week"?"Do this now"...."do this everyday"...do this in rememberence of me is a command...is how I see it...and how the Apostles sees it and how the Early Christians see it...they didnt think it was symbolic why should I? i am so sorry i dont see "do this in rememberence of me" as a symbol...i just dont...nowhere does it state that...nowhere does it point it to be that...i just dont see it...i just addressed this to another poster...

While no Mormon would deny that we are commanded to perform the ritual in remembrance of our Savior- the fact that we are commanded has nothing to do with the nature of the Eucharist itself.

God could just as easily command that I run around Temple Square naked three times daily- but that doesn't mean my flesh is somehow miraculously transformed into his.

The fact that we are commanded to remember him does nothing to support your claims of transubstatiation.

The fact that we commanded to do it as a remembrance or token, by definition precludes the presence of the actual blood and flesh.

[Hoops22]

I run around Temple Square naked three times daily

Then I would have to reconsider my view of an all-knowing, merciful God.

[selek]

Then I would have to reconsider my view of an all-knowing, merciful God.

Christ restored sight to the blind.

Why can't he command me to do it in reverse?

[Anijen]

Servant writes;

do this in rememberence of me is a command...is how I see it.

Okay because its a commandmnet, how does that make it less symbolic?

It is a commandment yes okay I agree, but we can do this commandment, this [symbolic] ritual to renew covenants we made when we accepted Jesus and took his name upon us.

Edited to add it appears Selek beat me to the point.

[Hoops22]

Christ restored sight to the blind.

Why can't he command me to do it in reverse?

That was funny.

[Anijen]

QUOTE

I run around Temple Square naked three times daily

Duet 28:34

[selek]

Duet 28:34

Are you suggesting that I live in fulfillment of verse 35?

[Anijen]

Are you suggesting that I live in fulfillment of verse 35?

ouch...

[selek]

ouch...

The irony is that if not fulfillment, I live in similitude- I have systemic joint problems from my service in the Navy- and all the joints- from the soles of my feet to the crown of my head- give me problem periodically.

[russianwolfe]

ok let me get this straight...it has been a long time since I was a mormon...

you guys believe that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is God? or do you believe that the Father is a god, Jesus is a god and the Holy Spirit is a god

or do you believe that the Father is God and Jesus is just a man, and the holy spirit is just a spirit?

Here's how I believe. Other can chime in with their 2 cents.

First God the Father is the source of all power and authority. Second, God the Father has ordained Christ with all the power and authority he needs to perform as the Savior of the World and the mediator between God the Father and Man. Third, God the Father has ordained the Holy Ghost with allthe power and authority he needs to perform as the Testator of the Gospel.

God the Father is God because he is the source of all power and all authority. Christ is God because he has God the Father's power and authority as the Savior and Mediator. And last, the Holy Ghost is God because he has God the Father's power and authority as the Testator of the Gospel. They are all united both in power & authority as well as in knowledge and purpose. This makes them one God indistinguishable except in power and authority.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

Marvin

[Hoops22]

The irony is that if not fulfillment, I live in similitude- I have systemic joint problems from my service in the Navy- and all the joints- from the soles of my feet to the crown of my head- give me problem periodically.

Then, please, you are excused from your naked running duty. Please. Please.

Hope it's not too uncomfortable. (insert one of those icons that shows I feel for ya).

[Servant]

While no Mormon would deny that we are commanded to perform the ritual in remembrance of our Savior- the fact that we are commanded has nothing to do with the nature of the Eucharist itself.

God could just as easily command that I run around Temple Square naked three times daily- but that doesn't mean my flesh is somehow miraculously transformed into his.

The fact that we are commanded to remember him does nothing to support your claims of transubstatiation.

The fact that we commanded to do it as a remembrance or token, by definition precludes the presence of the actual blood and flesh.

well sorry im not convinced...im convinced that you see it that way..though..

because for one if it was symbolic the other scriptures wouldnt make any sense as I have demonstrated...

and for 2 do this in rememberence....is a command but also do this because there is something special that Jesus did..."take and eat this is my body".........."take and drink this is my blood"...............

the rememberence I take as to do it...and remember him yes...but also what he has promised us during the Last Supper...

that is how I see it..

but thanks anyways for trying...

and lol@running around naked...

[Servant]

delete

[Servant]

Here's how I believe. Other can chime in with their 2 cents.

First God the Father is the source of all power and authority. Second, God the Father has ordained Christ with all the power and authority he needs to perform as the Savior of the World and the mediator between God the Father and Man. Third, God the Father has ordained the Holy Ghost with allthe power and authority he needs to perform as the Testator of the Gospel.

God the Father is God because he is the source of all power and all authority. Christ is God because he has God the Father's power and authority as the Savior and Mediator. And last, the Holy Ghost is God because he has God the Father's power and authority as the Testator of the Gospel. They are all united both in power & authority as well as in knowledge and purpose. This makes them one God indistinguishable except in power and authority.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

Marvin

thank you for answering...

your post a is a little bit confusing...

you make it clear that there is tree sepearte people...God appointed Jesus....so you believe in three gods...who basically are unitied...just like if me and my kid we say a prayer and we say the same one we are uniting...different from the Trinity...but yeah ok...thank you...i was wondering if anybody was going to answer it...thanks

[johnny]

Flyonthewall

I have already laid out why I believe the the last supper was symbolic. Jesus laid out a concept initially, and then explained what he meant during the last supper,

If "the last supper was symbolic" why didn't Jesus use any of the words that mean represent or symbolize?

Why didn't Jesus clarify his intentions if he was speaking in a non-literal sense during the last supper?

Paul further explained it afterwards. Since the bread and wine/water are symbols of the Atonement, those that partake of them unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of Christ, because that is the offering Christ made for sin.

If the "bread and wine/water are symbols" how could one be guilt of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ. In a Semitic culture, to be guilty of anotherâ??s body and blood is to be guilty of murder.

See article below for more discussion:

How to Defend Christâ??s Presence in the Eucharist

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103sbs.asp

In addition to the historical evidence, it is useful to examine the language that Christ would have used at the Last Supper. In Aramaic, there are over three dozen words that mean represent or symbolize, but Jesus used none of them in his statement, "This is my body." In fact, a literal translation in the Aramaic is simply, "This my body."

If this phrase were metaphorical, a serious difficulty arises in 1 Corinthians 11:27, where Paul says that if one eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. In a Semitic culture, to be guilty of anotherâ??s body and blood is to be guilty of murder. Yet how could one be guilty of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ? Paul goes on to say that some are dying because of this.

Beginning in verse 43, Jesus replies to these objections. At the completion of his answer (6:51), he speaks of a bread that he is yet to give. The Jewsâ?? understand that he is now speaking in a literal sense, and so they object, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So the Jews first objected because of what Jesusâ?? initial words meant symbolically, and now they object to what his second statement means literally. Had Jesus been speaking in a metaphorical sense here, this would be the perfect point to clarify his intentions.

Keeping this in mind, look how Jesus answers the Jewsâ?? objections in John 6:53â??58: "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. . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my flesh is drink indeed." These words would hardly quell the Jewâ??s fear that Jesus spoke literally. Following this, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"(6:60). At this point, we witness the only place in Scripture where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, what would have been so hard for the disciples to accept?

[selek]

Flyonthewall

If "the last supper was symbolic" why didn't Jesus use any of the words that mean represent or symbolize?

Why didn't Jesus clarify his intentions if he was speaking in a non-literal sense during the last supper?

If the "bread and wine/water are symbols" how could one be guilt of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ. In a Semitic culture, to be guilty of anotherâ??s body and blood is to be guilty of murder.

You're arguing from silence again, Johnny. Since we know that the Scriptures are not a complete record of Christ's statements and teachings, you cannot use what is not recorded to prove your point.

Also- your argument is logically incoherent.

We are guilty of Christ's suffering because of our sins- not because of the Eucharist.

And whether or not the bread and wine are symbols- we each remain guilty of his body and blood- his sacrifice was for our sins.

Are you suggesting that a non-believer who is not in covenant with Christ or a believer who does not partake of the Sacrament are somehow not guilty of Christ's body and blood?

That kinda takes the starch out of a universal sacrifice now, doesn't it?

[Servant]

the Last supper or the john chapter 6 are not parables...

a parable would compare something...

definition of parable (which is symbolic)

par⋅a⋅ble

   /ˈp

[selek]

the Last supper or the john chapter 6 are not parables...

a parable would compare something...

definition of parable (which is symbolic)

par⋅a⋅ble

   /ˈp

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall

If "the last supper was symbolic" why didn't Jesus use any of the words that mean represent or symbolize?

Why didn't Jesus clarify his intentions if he was speaking in a non-literal sense during the last supper?

If the "bread and wine/water are symbols" how could one be guilt of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ. In a Semitic culture, to be guilty of anotherâ??s body and blood is to be guilty of murder.

See article below for more discussion:

How to Defend Christâ??s Presence in the Eucharist

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103sbs.asp

In addition to the historical evidence, it is useful to examine the language that Christ would have used at the Last Supper. In Aramaic, there are over three dozen words that mean represent or symbolize, but Jesus used none of them in his statement, "This is my body." In fact, a literal translation in the Aramaic is simply, "This my body."

If this phrase were metaphorical, a serious difficulty arises in 1 Corinthians 11:27, where Paul says that if one eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. In a Semitic culture, to be guilty of anotherâ??s body and blood is to be guilty of murder. Yet how could one be guilty of murder if the bread is merely a symbol of Christ? Paul goes on to say that some are dying because of this.

Beginning in verse 43, Jesus replies to these objections. At the completion of his answer (6:51), he speaks of a bread that he is yet to give. The Jewsâ?? understand that he is now speaking in a literal sense, and so they object, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So the Jews first objected because of what Jesusâ?? initial words meant symbolically, and now they object to what his second statement means literally. Had Jesus been speaking in a metaphorical sense here, this would be the perfect point to clarify his intentions.

Keeping this in mind, look how Jesus answers the Jewsâ?? objections in John 6:53â??58: "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. . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my flesh is drink indeed." These words would hardly quell the Jewâ??s fear that Jesus spoke literally. Following this, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"(6:60). At this point, we witness the only place in Scripture where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, what would have been so hard for the disciples to accept?

What is a symbol? it is one thing that represents another.

Here is a scriptural reference that outlines how when we do something to someting else that represents Christ, it is the same as if we did it to Christ:

Matt. 25: 40, 45

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

During the last supper, Christ did make clear the symbols of His body and blood:

26

[johnny]

selek

You're arguing from silence again, Johnny. Since we know that the Scriptures are not a complete record of Christ's statements and teachings, you cannot use what is not recorded to prove your point.

Whose arguing ... I am simply trying to understand how anyone could read it symbolically.

Also- your argument is logically incoherent.

Your understanding of 1Cor 11 is logically incoherent, 1Cor 11 says

• 1Cor.11 ([27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.)
  

We are guilty of Christ's suffering because of our sins- not because of the Eucharist.

And whether or not the bread and wine are symbols- we each remain guilty of his body and blood- his sacrifice was for our sins.

Are you suggesting that a non-believer who is not in covenant with Christ or a believer who does not partake of the Sacrament are somehow not guilty of Christ's body and blood?

That kinda takes the starch out of a universal sacrifice now, doesn't it?

I am suggesting that taking the Sacrament involves discerning the the Lord's body, meaning we must understand the sense of Jesus' death. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself. The judgment is described as the illness, infirmity, and death that have visited the community.

[selek]

selek

Whose arguing ... I am simply trying to understand how anyone could read it symbolically.

Your understanding of 1Cor 11 is logically incoherent, 1Cor 11 says

• 1Cor.11 ([27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.)
  

There is nothing in this statement that precludes the Sacrament being symbolic.

If one partakes of the symbols unrighteously, he is just as guilty of mocking the Lord's sacrifice as if it were his literal body and blood.

I also noticed that you ducked the questions I asked earlier.

Why?

[johnny]

Flyonthewall

What is a symbol? it is one thing that represents another.

Here is a scriptural reference that outlines how when we do something to someting else that represents Christ, it is the same as if we did it to Christ:

In scripture there are some verses that have symbolism and some that don't ...

During the last supper, Christ did make clear the symbols of His body and blood:

Why are you chopping up the words?

Jesus said "Take, eat; this is my body". Explain how the words "Take, eat; this is my body" can be interpreted as symbolic without chopping up the words like you have.

The concept of eating Christ's flesh, and drinking His blood, was His way of saying that He would be the final sacrifice. This would not be fully understood until after Christ laid down His life.

It is not a final sacrifice ... The Sacrament is a sacrifice that re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit. The bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

To partake of Christ's flesh and blood, is to partake of the atonement. At the last supper, Christ gave the apostles an ordinance to remember Him, and the atonement, to be performed often.

The Sacrament is a memorial of Christ's Passover and it is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Sacrament is manifested in the words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood".

[johnny]

selek

There is nothing in this statement that precludes the Sacrament being symbolic.

Explain how the bolded text is symbolic:

1Cor.11 ([1] Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. [2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. [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: [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. [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. [26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. [27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.)

I also noticed that you ducked the questions I asked earlier.

Why?

Is this the question?

- That kinda takes the starch out of a universal sacrifice now, doesn't it?

I thought this would take this thread off-topic ...

[selek]

Flyonthewall

In scripture there are some verses that have symbolism and some that don't ...

We agree- the sacrament is one such occurence.

Jesus said "Take, eat; this is my body". Explain how the words "Take, eat; this is my body" can be interpreted as symbolic without chopping up the words like you have.

Explain why these statements could not be symbolism. Or do you believe that Peter was literally transmuted into granit when Christ said, "This is the rock upon which my Church will be built"?

It is not a final sacrifice ... The Sacrament is a sacrifice that re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit. The bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

No English speaker would choose to arbitrarily and capriciously redefine "represent" as you have.

Something that represents another is a symbol.

If the eucharist represents Christ's body and blood it is- by definition- a symbol.

If it were literally Christ's body and blood it would not represent Christ's sacrifice- it would be Christ's sacrifice.

The Sacrament is a memorial of Christ's Passover and it is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Sacrament is manifested in the words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood".

None of which precludes the bread and wine from being sybolic of Christ's blood rather than the genuine article.

[selek]

selek

Explain how the bolded text is symbolic:

Explain how they could not be symbolic.

Again- do you believe that Peter was literally translated into stone when Christ called him the foundation upon which the Church would be built?

Why can the latter statement be symbollic, but not the former?

1Cor.11 ([1] Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. [2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. [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: [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. [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. [26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. [27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.)

Wherein does this scripture state that the sacrament CANNOT be symbollic?

Is this the question?

- That kinda takes the starch out of a universal sacrifice now, doesn't it?

I thought this would take this thread off-topic ...

No, it's not.

This is the question:

We are guilty of Christ's suffering because of our sins- not because of the Eucharist.

And whether or not the bread and wine are symbols- we each remain guilty of his body and blood- his sacrifice was for our sins.

Are you suggesting that a non-believer who is not in covenant with Christ or a believer who does not partake of the Sacrament are somehow not guilty of Christ's body and blood?

You have been arguing that the Sacrament must be the literal body and blood of Christ because if we take them unworthily, we are then guilt of the body and blood.

Are you suggesting that a non-believer who is not in covenant with Christ or a believer who does not partake of the Sacrament are somehow not guilty of Christ's body and blood?