Ok, is it like this: In communion, you are taking Jesus' soul into your own?

Question

So it's not really eating, as much as just taking Him into your life? I'm confused.

Answer 1

Its a remembrance of how he gave His life for us...it is symbolism of something very important and we are forgiven each time we do this. Does your church preach the trinity? we would love to know what helped you to become a Christian..
OOO

Answer 2

How you view communion is often determined by the denomination in which you are a member.

There are generally three views of Jesus' presence in communion. These are:

Transubstantiation, which is a Roman Catholic, Episcopal, and Orthodox doctrine. In this case, when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine, and become instead the body and blood of Christ. Their appearances are not changed, but their reality is.

Consubstantiation, which is primarily a Lutheran doctrine, where Jesus is truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that the parishioners eat and drink both the elements and the true Body and Blood of Christ Himself. He is really present, but the elements do not change.

Memorial or Symbolic, which is a general Protestant doctrine, where the memory of what Jesus did is celebrated. Because Protestants already believe that Jesus is omnipresent (everywhere at once), there is no need to believe that He becomes, or is present with, the elements.

Answer 3

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" (1Cor. 11:26). Our authority as to when to partake of this memorial is "on the first day of the week," given in the example of the first century disciples in Acts 20:7. This is the day our Lord rose from the dead victorious. Christians are to partake of the supper Jesus instituted each first day of the week to remember the salvation and deliverance that God has provided for them through the perfect sacrifice of His Son.

Answer 4

You got it, it's about taking in his grace. I'm Catholic, so we kinda believe that Communion is the body of Christ.

Answer 5

FYI: Tens of thousands of Jews were killed across Europe for cracker defilement (they were accused of stealing and torturing the wafer).

Answer 6

catholics believe that during the mass the hosts (the little crackers) are blessed and the wine is blessed.. they represent jesus' body and blood that he gave for us. so basically, yes it is taking jesus into your body, your soul.

Answer 7

It's not mean to be eating, it's a spiritual sustenance, not a physical one.

Where are your parents, pastor?

Answer 8

Step Up---yes, I'd agree with you. You ARE confused.

Kim C---GOOD answer!

Answer 9

don't question some things, just do it. you are accepting christ into your life.

Answer 10

As stated by the Sacred Congregation of Rites of the Roman Catholic Church, the Mass is “—A sacrifice in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated; —A memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said ‘do this in memory of me’ (Luke 22:19); —A sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the People of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father, proclaiming the Lord’s death ‘till His coming.’” (Eucharisticum Mysterium, May 25, 1967) It is the Catholic Church’s way of doing what they understand that Jesus Christ did at the Last Supper.

Are the bread and the wine actually changed into Christ’s body and blood?

In a “Solemn Profession of Faith” on June 30, 1968, Pope Paul VI declared: “We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His Body and His Blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, so the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and We believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under the appearance of those elements which seem to our senses the same after as before the Consecration, is a true, real and substantial presence. . . . This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation.” (Official Catholic Teachings—Christ Our Lord, Wilmington, N.C.; 1978, Amanda G. Watlington, p. 411) Do the Holy Scriptures agree with that belief?

What did Jesus mean when he said, “This is my body,” “This is my blood”?

Matt. 26:26-29, JB: “Now as they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and when he had said the blessing he broke it and gave it to the disciples. ‘Take it and eat;’ he said ‘this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and when he had returned thanks he gave it to them. ‘Drink all of you from this,’ he said ‘for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. From now on, I tell you, I shall not drink wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father.’”

Regarding the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood,” the following is noteworthy: Mo reads, “it means my body,” “this means my blood.” (Italics added.) NW reads similarly. LEF renders the expressions, “this represents my body,” “this represents my blood.” (Italics added.) These renderings agree with what is stated in the context, in verse 29, in various Catholic editions. Kx reads: “I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine again, until I drink it with you, new wine, in the kingdom of my Father.” (Italics added.) CC, NAB, Dy also show Jesus referring to what was in the cup as being “this fruit of the vine,” and that was after Jesus had said, “This is my blood.”

Consider the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood” in the light of other vivid language used in the Scriptures. Jesus also said, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the gate of the sheepfold,” “I am the true vine.” (John 8:12; 10:7; 15:1, JB) None of these expressions implied a miraculous transformation, did they?

At 1 Corinthians 11:25 (JB), the apostle Paul wrote concerning the Last Supper and expressed the same ideas in slightly different words. Instead of quoting Jesus as saying regarding the cup, “Drink all of you from this . . . for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant,” he worded it in this way: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Surely that did not mean that the cup was somehow miraculously transformed into the new covenant. Is it not more reasonable to conclude that what was in the cup represented Jesus’ blood by means of which the new covenant was validated?

What did Jesus mean by his statement at John 6:53-57?

“Jesus replied: ‘I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him. As I, who am sent by the living Father, myself draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will draw life from me.’”—John 6:53-57, JB.

Is this to be understood as meaning that they were literally to eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood? If so, Jesus would have been advocating a violation of the Law that God had given Israel through Moses. That Law prohibited the consuming of any sort of blood. (Lev. 17:10-12) Contrary to advocating such a thing, Jesus spoke out strongly against breaking any of the requirements of the Law. (Matt. 5:17-19) So what Jesus had in mind must have been eating and drinking in a figurative sense, by exercising faith in the value of his perfect human sacrifice.—Compare John 3:16; 4:14; 6:35, 40.

Acts 20:7, merely records that Paul, his traveling companions, and Christians from Troas gathered together on the first day of the week for a meal. Since Paul was going to leave the next day and he would not see them again for some time, he took advantage of the occasion to speak to them at length.

The second text, 1 Corinthians 16:2, encouraged the Christians at Corinth to set aside money “every first day of the week” in order to have something to contribute to those in need in Judea. Scholar Adolf Deissmann suggests that this day may have been a payday. At any rate, Paul’s suggestion was practical, since money could run out during the week.

Nowhere in the Bible is it said that Christians in the apostolic era viewed the first day of the week, now called Sunday, as a kind of Christian sabbath, a day set aside exclusively for their regular meetings for worship. It was only after the death of the apostles that Sunday came to be viewed in this way and came to be called “the Lord’s day.” This was part of the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles themselves.—Matthew 13:36-43; Acts 20:29, 30; 1 John 2:18.

How did Sunday come to be the principal day of worship for much of Christendom?

Although Christ was resurrected on the first day of the week (now called Sunday), the Bible contains no instruction to set aside that day of the week as sacred.

“The retention of the old Pagan name of ‘Dies Solis,’ or ‘Sunday,’ for the weekly Christian festival, is, in great measure, owing to the union of Pagan and [so-called] Christian sentiment with which the first day of the week was recommended by Constantine [in an edict in 321 C.E.] to his subjects, Pagan and Christian alike, as the ‘venerable day of the Sun.’ . . . It was his mode of harmonizing the discordant religions of the Empire under one common institution.”—Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church (New York, 1871), A. P. Stanley, p. 291.