1 Corinthians 11:29-30

[E.E.N.S]

sandusky:

But, the apostles are not talking about my mother. She did not shed her blood for those who would believe; neither is she God; she is my mother.

Okay, I won’t use your mother, I will use Jesus Himself, so everyone please forgive me if this sounds irreverent in any way.

If I take a painting of Jesus and trample over it, I am not guilty of trampling over Jesus…however, if I trample over Jesus Himself, in the flesh, then I am guilty of that act.

You cannot be guilty of profaning Christ’s Body [in the Eucharist] if the Eucharist is only a symbol, now can you?

 

[sandusky]

Absalom:

Since Ignatius referred to the Eucharist as the “flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,” it seems to me to be a bit ridiculous to suppose that he was talking about a spiritual presence. No, Ignatius meant exactly what he said, which is that the substance of the bread is replaced by the flesh of the Lord.

Yes, Ignatius and later Irenaeus thought of it as “the medicine of immortality, and the antidote that we should not die but that we should live in Jesus Christ forever.”

Justin said: “The food which is blessed by the prayer of His Word, and by which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus which was made flesh.” (Apol. i.66). You are taking that in a crudely materialistic sense. The food is spiritual, as evidenced by others who follow Ignatius and Irenaeus.

Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian tended to identify the bread and wine with the body and blood, and even to attach the real presence to the elements; however, they also thought of it as a symbol. Tertullian called the bread the “figure” of the body. Origen figuratively and allegorically referred to the Supper; Cyprian developed the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice.

It is in the 3rd and 4th centuries that two tendencies become noticeable: Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Ambrose, the most influential exponent, tended to identify the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ by alluding to a transformation of the elements. They used realist language unqualifiedly.

In the same period, others, including Augustine, maintained the tradition that the elements signified things they could not contain, while also affirming that elements were signs of realities actually present.

Not until the 9th century, did the contemporary sacramental doctrines begin to take shape. Paschasuis Radbertus (ca 785-806), followed Ambrose’s lead asserting that the Eucharist bread, becomes the body of the Lord through a change in the elements. In opposition, Ratramnus developed Augustine’s thoughts that the bread symbolizes the mystical body of Christ. In the 11th century, Berengar of Tours revived the dynamic-symbolic teaching of the Spiritual aspect; his teaching was condemned, and in 1215 the 4th Lateran Council asserted transubstantiation, and Aquinas further worked out the details, by employing the philosophy of Aristotle.

In other words, the simple use of the bread and wine as symbols of Christ’s body and blood, developed over time to the idea of transubstantiation; and, the consent was not unanimous and unfettered, but rather was put in place by an “authoritative” assertion. To assert unanimous understanding of the Eucharist as being only real and transubstantiated from the days of the Apostles to the present is to ignore history.

Absalom:

Also, notice that when Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be “born again” to be saved, Nicodemus doesn’t understand

That leads me to my next point. John 6 begins with the feeding of the 5,000. With that, John sets the context for the majority of the chapter: Physical nourishment contrasted with spiritual nourishment. Here Jesus uses a physical reality to illustrate a spiritual truth: To live forever, you must believe in Him; the analogy of eating is used to illustrate this.

You know the story.

The day after the feeding of the 5,000, the crowds follow Jesus and find Him.

Knowing their hearts He says to them, you seek me not because you understood what I did yesterday, but, “because you ate the loaves and were filled.” They just wanted another meal.

Then He says to them don’t go after food that perishes (that food being physical/material food), but after food which endures to eternal life which He will give to them (that food being spiritual food) by belief in His death/resurrection (cf Jn 6:29, 40, et al.).

They continue to misunderstand Him, and they counter again with the story of the manna, the physical bread with which God fed their fathers in the wilderness (v31).

Knowing their thoughts, Jesus counters again in v32, the manna that Moses gave you is not the true bread from heaven, but the true bread from heaven is from My Father, God; He gives the bread from heaven that gives life to the world. It is through belief in Christ’s death that life is given to the world (cf Jn 3:16).

(continued)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #22)

They continue to misunderstand Him, and in v34, they implore Him: “Lord, always give us this bread.” Yea, they think, Free eats! In v 35, Jesus, knowing their true thoughts are about physical bread offers Himself instead: “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.” It is important to note here, that Jesus does not say one has to eat anything; rather, one must “come” to, and “believe in” Jesus to never hunger or thirst again.

Christ continues with His this theme of belief in V36, telling them, you have seen Me (feed all of you yesterday from a few loaves and fish v 26), and yet you still don’t believe. Their lack of belief is the reason they misunderstand the illustration He is giving them. As we shall see, they misunderstand all the way to the end of His analogy.

Vv37-40 are key to keep in mind here, because He tells them why they misunderstand: they have not been given to Him by the Father; also, He finishes His discourse with these folks with the same statement (v65), again illustrating, in His own inimitable way, that from the beginning of the chapter, they have misunderstood everything that He has said to them, because they are not from God.

The crowd ignores His remarks in vv37-40, and in v 41 they again grumble, not about what He said in vv37-40, but about what He said in vv32-33, 35.

They continue to misunderstand Him: they know His father and mother, how can He have come down from heaven? Don’t grumble, Christ says, you can’t come to me unless the Father draws you to me. Jesus then quotes Is 54:13, again, giving the reason they misunderstand: they do not belong to God (Jn 6:45).

In v47, Jesus again reiterates the way to eternal life: belief.

He immediately says again, “I am the bread of life, v48; He reminds them that their fathers ate the manna and died, and then states that the one who eats the bread from heaven will not die.

Two points are important here:

1. He has already told them how the bread from heaven keeps them alive; it is by “coming to,” and “believing in” Him v35, 47, as well as, v37, 40.
2. Those who ate manna died; those who eat the bread from heaven, will not die. Surely, he does not mean that eating the bread from heaven will allow one to escape the physical death; it is spiritual life that the bread from heaven imparts, and that is appropriated by belief, faith. Again, Christ is contrasting the physical reality of eating bread, with the spiritual truth of coming to, and believing in Him for eternal life. It is belief He is stressing, not eating anything.

In vv51-58, He goes through the whole analogy again, this time illustrating with the eating of His flesh.

They continue to misunderstand Him. In v60 they again grumble over His words. What does He mean we have to eat His flesh.

They have, from the day before, misunderstood everything that He has said.

Jesus says, “it is the Spirit that gives life…the words that I have spoken (in this discourse), are spirit and life.”

The Words are life.

They misunderstood all that He said to them, and in v65, He again tells why it is that anyone misunderstands: they are not from God.

Absalom:

When Jesus tells the disciples that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, the disciples seem to misunderstand (“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”), yet Jesus does not say, “What I am saying means that you must believe in me to be saved.” Why not? Because the Jews had not misunderstood him at all.

I addressed this above. Jesus analogy was not about eating to eternal life, but believing in Him to eternal life.

Absalom:

It is ridiculous to say that Jesus would have let many of the disciples leave him because they misunderstood a metaphor that he was using. Basically, that means that he let a good number of souls be lost because he was unwilling to explain a metaphor.

Jesus uses several metaphors in this discourse: “I am the bread of Life,” vv35,48; “I am the living bread that came down from heaven,” v51; “My flesh is true food,” and “”My blood is true drink,” v55. The rest of His discourse is analogy. A metaphor, by definition, is symbolic; an analogy, by definition, is a likeness of one thing to another. Both are figurative, not literal language. Metaphors are also used in the Last Supper discourse in Mt 26:26ff; Mk 14:22ff; Lk 22:19ff.

As far as being lost for the Lord’s unwillingness to explain, that is the reason Jesus spoke in parables. God determined that the Jews should not believe (Mt 13:10-15, cf Jn 12:37-40). Also, as I pointed out above, Jesus explains to crowd in Jn 6:37-40, 44-45, 65, why they don’t believe. It was God’s decision that they should not. They did not understand that.

(continued)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #23)

Absalom:

Finally, all of this business about baptism and the Eucharist being mere symbols just blows my mind. I ask the question: why? What’s the point of these mere symbols? If it has nothing to do with our salvation, why be baptised? If it has nothing to do with our salvation and/or spiritual health, why commemorate the Last Supper?

We are baptized, because we are told to be baptized (throughout the book of Acts). That is why Christ did it, “to fulfill all righteousness,” certainly He did not need regeneration, and we commemorate the Last Supper because we are told to do it (Mt. 22:19). Both are commands of the God.

 

[sandusky]

E.E.N.S:

Okay, I won’t use your mother, I will use Jesus Himself, so everyone please forgive me if this sounds irreverent in any way.

If I take a painting of Jesus and trample over it, I am not guilty of trampling over Jesus…however, if I trample over Jesus Himself, in the flesh, then I am guilty of that act.

You cannot be guilty of profaning Christ’s Body [in the Eucharist] if the Eucharist is only a symbol, now can you?

As I have shown you before, you can be guilty of profaning Christ’s body when He is not physically present; in fact, you can even re-crucify Him and put Him to shame, and trample His body underfoot without His being present. Simply because you link it to the Eucharist, does not prove His presence in it.

 

[MonicaC]

sandusky:

As I have shown you before, you can be guilty of profaning Christ’s body when He is not physically present; in fact, you can even re-crucify Him and put Him to shame, and trample His body underfoot without His being present. Simply because you link it to the Eucharist, does not prove His presence in it.

Sandusky, I feel that you are very close to opening your heart to the truth. I will really pray for you. It really breaks my heart that you can not see that our Lord Jesus is present in the Eucharist. THis is not something that man made up it was directions that our Lord gave us, and to reject this is to reject Him. “will you too leave?” I really hope not. Do me a faviore and reread these passages. Let the Holy Spirit guide and not man.

 

[Pax]

Sandusky,

Your claims about John 6 and metaphors is misplaced and here’s why. When Jesus talks about eating his flesh and drinking his blood he is speaking literally. If he were not speaking literally then we would have to conclude that his body broken and blood spilled upon the cross were symbolic as well. We know this because in John 6:51 Jesus says, " I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The flesh he is speaking of for us to eat is the same flesh that He gives for the life of the world. The flesh He gave for the life of the world is the flesh that hung upon the cross of crucifixion.

There is much more that can be said on this subject, but this one passage lays to rest your contention that Jesus was speaking symbolically.

 

[E.E.N.S]

sandusky:

As I have shown you before, you can be guilty of profaning Christ’s body when He is not physically present; in fact, you can even re-crucify Him and put Him to shame, and trample His body underfoot without His being present. Simply because you link it to the Eucharist, does not prove His presence in it.

What you have shown me was only your misunderstanding of John 6 (among other things), and I do not remember your showing me how we can be guilty of “trampling Jesus underfoot” without Jesus being underfoot…?

 

[Mickey]

E.E.N.S.:

What you have shown me was only your misunderstanding of John 6 (among other things), and I do not remember your showing me how we can be guilty of “trampling Jesus underfoot” without Jesus being underfoot…?

I pray for all those who have fallen victim to the deception of the protestant revisionists-- when they deny and profane the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
** John 6:56**

 

[E.E.N.S]

Mickey:

I pray for all those who have fallen victim to the deception of the protestant revisionists-- when they deny and profane the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
**John **6:56

Amen.

 

[Absalom]

Just as connecting 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 to the real presence seems a bit of a stretch to you, so too, does your interpretation of John 6 (although you’re almost on the mark).

It seems to me that one thing you are operating off of is “It is the Spirit who gives life, while the flesh avails nothing.” And yet, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church.” If you contend that the Eucharist is a false doctrine because “the flesh avails nothing,” as I have heard many Protestants say, then as Pax has pointed out, we have to conclude also that Jesus’ death on the cross was of no avail. Jesus is talking about the supernatural vs. the natural.

I agree that the Jews wanted another free meal, however, I interpret the context a little differently. I see Jesus’ feeding of the thousands as a preparation for the discourse at the end of chapter 6. It is an answer to the question, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” By the power of the Spirit, of course. You say that he is contrasting their desire for earthly food with their need for spiritual nourishment through believing in Him, but this in no way negates the possibility that he was speaking quite literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. You say “eat” means “believe,” yet the literal translation is “chew” and Jesus says, “My flesh is true food and my blood true drink.” Nobody who believes in the Real Presence thinks of it as a free meal. We understand that by feeding us his flesh and blood, Jesus is not supplying us mere physical nourishment - he is giving us the Bread of Life.

We understand, also, that our faith is essential to receiving the grace that comes from the Eucharist. This is why Paul warns us that to receive without discerning the body is a condemnation. Yes, one can trample under foot the sacrifice without Jesus being physically present, but Paul there places special emphasis on receiving the Eucharist unworthily for a reason.

As for there not being a consensus about the Real Presence (I never asserted that there was), so what? Has there ever been a consensus about *anything? *Shall we disbelieve in the Trinity because some people have disagreed about it (and continue to disagree to this day)?

Must go to work now, but we should continue this discussion later.

 

[sandusky]

E.E.N.S.:

I do not remember your showing me how we can be guilty of “trampling Jesus underfoot” without Jesus being underfoot…?

Heb 10:29

Is Jesus being literally trampled underfoot? No. It is in the heart, and by the attitude that one tramples Christ undersfoot, re-crucifies Him (Heb 6:6), and is guilty of His body and blood
(1 cor 11).

 

[E.E.N.S]

sandusky:

Heb 10:29

Is Jesus being literally trampled underfoot? No. It is in the heart, and by the attitude that one tramples Christ undersfoot, re-crucifies Him (Heb 6:6), and is guilty of His body and blood
(1 cor 11).

That’s because Paul is talking about the True Pressence!

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
27 “Guilty of the body”… not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body.

 

[Atreyu]

Can a Protestant believe in Iconoclasm and symbolic-only Eucharist at the same time? Isn’t that a contradiction?

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Sandusky,

Your claims about John 6 and metaphors is misplaced and here’s why. When Jesus talks about eating his flesh and drinking his blood he is speaking literally. If he were not speaking literally then we would have to conclude that his body broken and blood spilled upon the cross were symbolic as well. We know this because in John 6:51 Jesus says, " I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The flesh he is speaking of for us to eat is the same flesh that He gives for the life of the world. The flesh He gave for the life of the world is the flesh that hung upon the cross of crucifixion.

Jn 6:51 is also a figure of speech. It is not the flesh that is important, it is the giving of Himself. All of Him. The flesh is stated, but the whole is what is in view. Do you agree?

He Himself says in v 63 that the flesh profits nothing, but the spirit who gives life. Why won’t you see it?

 

[sandusky]

E.E.N.S.:

That’s because Paul is talking about the True Pressence!

My friend, the unbeliever, who hears the gospel and rejects it, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ. It has nothing to do with real presence.

 

[sandusky]

Atreyu:

Can a Protestant believe in Iconoclasm and symbolic-only Eucharist at the same time? Isn’t that a contradiction?

Can you restate this? I’m not quite sure what you are driving at.

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

He Himself says in v 63 that the flesh profits nothing, but the spirit who gives life. Why won’t you see it?

That’s a very popular and dangerous protestant misconception. Why won’t you see it?

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

CA

 

[E.E.N.S]

sandusky:

Jn 6:51 is also a figure of speech. It is not the flesh that is important, it is the giving of Himself. All of Him. The flesh is stated, but the whole is what is in view. Do you agree?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! That is one thing that I would stake my life one! And further more, not a single Christian would have sided with you for the first 1600 years after Christ’s death either.

 

[E.E.N.S]

sandusky:

My friend, the unbeliever, who hears the gospel and rejects it, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ. It has nothing to do with real presence.

That’s interesting…Paul says whoever partakes of the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily - NOT whoever hears the gospel and rejects it. STOP twisting Sacred Scripture!