Is communion symbolic or literal?

[LionHeart-IV]

Is communion symbolic or literal?

[Adstar]

Eating bread and drinking wine is done in memory of Jesus.. It is a symbolic reminder of us accepting His Word..

It is not literal..

His Gospel Word is the bread of Life, that Christians must accept as true and good..

His Blood that he spilled on the cross is the Wine that Christians must accept for the forgiveness of their sins..

[enoob57]

It is necessary to rightly divide God's Word so to have God's Word as a foundation for all of life here and now... a simple understanding of where God has placed life  is to understand it is s/Spirit...

John 3:5-9

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
KJV
 

One of the greatest barriers to understanding what God has done is to remove importance of life from that which passes away to that which God is keeping forever.... remember that which begets eternal is eternal and that which begets cessation is that which passes away!  

[Guest Butero]

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 6:35 AM, Adstar said:

Eating bread and drinking wine is done in memory of Jesus.. It is a symbolic reminder of us accepting His Word..

It is not literal..

His Gospel Word is the bread of Life, that Christians must accept as true and good..

His Blood that he spilled on the cross is the Wine that Christians must accept for the forgiveness of their sins..

I agree 100 percent.  The wine doesn't magically turn to real blood and the bread doesn't become literal flesh.  It is a reminder of what Christ did.  

[OneLight]

Keep in mind 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 when considering the Lord's Supper, especially verses 27-32.

Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.  For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.  For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.  But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

This is not something to take lightly.  It is real and symbolic at the same time.

[Guest Butero]

11 hours ago, Yowm said:

The act of Communion is real as it is a perpetual proclamation of Our Savior's death.

1Co 11:26  For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
 

We also do it in remembrance of Him. 

1Co 11:24  and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
 

These acts are not to be done symbolically but in reality.

I have no idea what this means.  Do you believe the wine turns into blood and the bread into flesh, or do you believe that the wine remains wine and the bread remains bread?  Also, since you once said that since we don't have the original Biblical manuscripts today, so everything in the Bible is subjective, how do you know this is true?  I am not meaning this to be sarcastic or snarky.  I really don't understand your post, which is one question, and why you bother to post scripture, given how you view the Bible, which is another question.  I am truly confused.  Help me understand. 

This is what I am referring to.  You said, "The Canon was books agreed upon by the Church as being divinely inspired, and those were not written in KJ.  IT WAS NOT THE ACUTAL TEXT, as by that time they already had several copies of the original letters/epistles in circulation and most likely some of these were in different languages."  The point I was making at the time was most of the modern English translations removed part of the text that was in the canon.  Even the Geneva Bible contained that text.  A book is more than the cover.  It is the text, so to say the text was not canon makes no sense.  Ministers were preaching messages from verses that have been removed out of Bibles.  Who is to say in a future discovery, 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 couldn't be removed, and based on your position, that is ok because the text isn't canon.  That is what I don't get.  

[Guest Butero]

1 minute ago, Yowm said:

First off, I am not speaking of the elements of Communion, I am speaking of the act. Jesus said, 'Do this'. I have shown what we are actually doing when we partake in Communion. I leave the element debate to each man's conscience and I hope I am left to mine.

As far as the manuscript debate goes, Shiloh and I both agreed that when comparing all the various mss and fragments, we have a text that is 99.999% certain to the original and the .0001% is of no doctrinal significance. I believe the subjective element comes in in deciding which translation' one prefers.

Hope that helps.

I added something to my original questions to you that wasn't there when you responded.  If I understand you correctly, you are not sure or you don't think it matters if we believe the bread turns to flesh and the wine turns to blood, and you don't want to give your personal belief.  Is that correct?  

My issue with the translations is that most leave out portions of the text that was considered canon, that even the Geneva Bible contained.  It remained Canon till the Egyptian and Alexandrian discoveries, and then suddenly, modern English translations decided that if these manuscripts didn't contain them, they would pick and choose which ones to keep and which to leave out, which amounts to an open Canon.  A book is more than the cover.  It is the contents.  Ministers preached messages from text that was left out of some of the modern English translations.  In the future, 1 Corinthians chapter 11 could be left out of new translations, and you would have to accept that as ok since the text is not canon.  If you can accept them discrediting Mark 16:9-16, and leaving out a multitude of other verses, I would imagine you would have to be ok with that.  They could leave out John 3:16,17, and that would be ok if the text is not canon.  It is all subjective what we accept.  That is what I don't understand.  The only modern English translation I know of that doesn't do this is the NKJV Bible, so even though I don't like how they worded some things, I leave this criticism out of any attacks on that version.  They are not actually destroying the credibility of the Canon.  

[simplejeff]

Settling that question is easy, for everyone who knows Scripture as Revealed by YHVH through Grace in Yahshua.

YHVH said no one may drink or eat blood.

Not once, never at all, never for any reason.

All the faithful Jews knew this perfectly, even as infants they were taught, all their lives, as YHVH stated it clearly.

[frienduff thaylorde]

Our communion is identical to the first communion.

Did he take and cut his wrist and pour it in a cup and say drink.   nope.  it was wine

DID he cut a chunk of flesh off  his skin and say eat,  No it was literal bread.

BUT HE WAS PRESENT

just as his spirit is present with us in communion.  

It is literal wine we drink and literal bread we eat , but its done so in remembrance of what HE did .

And his spirit is present with us .      Man complicates things so often.     Eat of my flesh , drink of my blood.      How can this man give us his flesh to eat and his blood

to drink.    JESUS said MY WORDS are SPIRIT and THEY ARE LIFE .    so feast of them why don't we . 

And one more key note of advice.   we cannot partake of the cup of devils  either .    so we don't just sit and have communion with those who preach CONTRARY to Christ .

Be blessed people.   and praise the Lord .

[simplejeff]

2 hours ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

Our communion is identical to the first communion.

Did he take and cut his wrist and pour it in a cup and say drink.   nope.  it was wine

DID he cut a chunk of flesh off  his skin and say eat,  No it was literal bread.

BUT HE WAS PRESENT

just as his spirit is present with us in communion.  

It is literal wine we drink and literal bread we eat , but its done so in remembrance of what HE did .

And his spirit is present with us .      Man complicates things so often.     Eat of my flesh , drink of my blood.      How can this man give us his flesh to eat and his blood

to drink.    JESUS said MY WORDS are SPIRIT and THEY ARE LIFE .    so feast of them why don't we . 

And one more key note of advice.   we cannot partake of the cup of devils  either .    so we don't just sit and have communion with those who preach CONTRARY to Christ .

Be blessed people.   and praise the Lord .

Do you know originally what religion did the abominable deception of drinking real blood come from ?