Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Uncle Chip; Claud; wagglebee
Did you notice in the scripture that even after the blessing and consecration of the bread, and just before it is eaten, the bread is still only bread.

When reading an article posted to the forum, it's always good practice to read it through in its entirety. The very next paragraph reads:

In the previous chapter the apostle wrote, "The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is communion with the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:16). His words are clear. The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so.

59 posted on 02/21/2008 8:26:59 AM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: NYer
In the previous chapter the apostle wrote, "The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is communion with the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:16). His words are clear. The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so.

There is no way to conclude that from I Cor 10:16, especially when it is read in context:

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

In this verse the "body" referred to is partaking of the "bread" -- and that "body" is the membership of the church, hence the word "communion" or fellowship rather than "eucharist". It appears that pagans had a type of communion service as well and Paul is telling those of the body of Christ [the Church] to stay away from it.

73 posted on 02/21/2008 9:17:27 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

To: NYer; Uncle Chip; Claud; wagglebee
When reading an article posted to the forum, it's always good practice to read it through in its entirety. The very next paragraph reads:

In the previous chapter the apostle wrote, "The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is communion with the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:16). His words are clear. The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so.


When reading a post it is always good practice to read it for meaning. Please note Uncle Chip clearly referred to Scripture. The apologists "explanation" is meaningless in this context.
92 posted on 02/21/2008 10:58:31 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson