Sorry. I missed this reply and just saw it referenced in Reggie's later post.
I think I've dealt with that before. I've always found it amazing that people can use "my words are spirit and they are life" to contradict what His words actually were. Yes. His words are life. Including the words just preceeding that verse. That it is His body.
You should reference your Bible quotes as a help.
My mistake. I thought it was the verse we were discussing and would be obvious. I'll try to do better.
but it still does not state here nor in the Gospels that it is His blood,
Um. Are you trying to say that it was recorded wrong on Matthew's version? That Luke renders it correctly? It most certainly does say "this is my blood". "of the new testament/covenant" can only be a modifier. You can argue whether Christ meant it literaly or metaphorically, but you can't say it doesn't say it - only that it doesn;t mean it.
I've always found it amazing that people can use "my words are spirit and they are life" to contradict what His words actually were. Yes. His words are life. Including the words just preceeding that verse. That it is His body.
The difference is symbolism vs. taking what is said literally. Jesus as the Living Word is life and we get His life by believing the gospel, not by the Lord's Supper. A saved person already has Jesus residing in him the very instant he believes and is saved. The issue then becomes Christ living in me and out through me. That's Gal. 2:20. We are also "complete in Him," Col. 2:10, the very instant we are saved, so nothing more can be added to us. Unfortunately some believe the Lord's Supper adds something to them, so I guess that would mean that Col. 2:10 is incorrect or has a different meaning. This is the result of taking a metaphor and treating it literally. As I said in another post, I choose to interpret the word "is" as meaning "symbolizes" or "represents" as used consistently throughout Scripture when metaphors are used.
Um. Are you trying to say that it was recorded wrong on Matthew's version? That Luke renders it correctly? It most certainly does say "this is my blood". "of the new testament/covenant" can only be a modifier. You can argue whether Christ meant it literaly or metaphorically, but you can't say it doesn't say it - only that it doesn;t mean it.
My point is that the different Gospel writers record what Jesus said differently. In the Luke account, "this cup is the new testament in my blood" is stated. Paul, by direct revelation from Jesus Christ said exactly the same words. By your reasoning, "this cup" then is the subject with "in my blood" modifying the "new testament." You might say it's what's in the cup or that the cup is symbolic. So which is correct?
It's your choice what you choose to believe. What I'm stating is my belief. And since Paul addresses the Body of Christ today, I opt to follow the instructions he provides in 1Cor. 11 for celebrating the Lord's Supper as a remembrance.