Are those who do not receive Jesus in Holy Eucharist really Christians? Is it insanity for them to continue claiming to be Christians?

[benedictus2]

Jesus explains Himself in v63, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

This is a non-sequitur. He said “**the **flesh” not “my flesh”. In verse 53-59 he uses “MY flesh” not “the” flesh" in verse 64 which is a general term.

Are you saying that after going through that long discourse about eating his flesh and drinking His blood He is saying oh , but that is all total waste of time.?

You are making Christ here to be someone who does not really know his own mind. You basically have Jesus saying, “Eat my flesh but you’ll find that it is all no use and pointless”

The use of the word flesh and spirit in verser 64 is different to verse 53-59. Verse 64 is used in the Pauline sense which contrasts flesh against spirit (unaided nature against nature elevated by grace). It essentially differentiates between carnal understanding and spiritual understanding.

 

[benedictus2]

“Many are called, few are chosen” is one of my favorite Scripture verses - I just don’t remember where it’s located in Scripture.

Here is a link to the New American Bible which is very easy to do a search on. Whenever I am not sure about a particular passage, I just google this.

I find this very handy.

usccb.org/nab/bible/

 

[benedictus2]

Christ’s Church, the Orthodox Church has never entered into heresy - to be sure some in the laity and clergy have held heretical beliefs from time to time, but the Orthodox Church has never fallen.

The Catholic Church separated itself from the Church by adding false teachings such as Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility and Purgatory etc.
And the Protestants separated themselves not just from the Catholic Church by rightly throwing out the false teachings, but they also separated themselves from Christ’s Church by throwing out even those teachings which are true such as Bishops, Priests, Holy Eucharist, Confession, etc.

The warning in Scripture is clear that no one is to “add” or “take away” from the Faith; however, the Catholics “added” and the Protestants “took away” - only the Orthodox have maintained the Faith unaltered.

Please, if you find yourself outside the Orthodox Church, please immediatly begin to take assessment of your own heart to find out why that is. Why are you rejecting Christ by rejecting His Church? Why are you rejecting the Holy Eucharist as Jesus’ fallen away disciples did as recorded in John 6:66? Begin to study and pray. Seek out and visit an Orthodox Church for Divine Liturgy. Speak to the priest. God wants to the best for you which is why He give you the opportunity to join His Church which His Holy Spirit has guided and guarded for 2000 years!

Thank God for His Mercy. Most Holy Theotokos Save Us!

Papal Supremacy if you can call it that is nothing more than saying that the Pope is first among bishops in the same way that Peter was singled out by the Lord.

Papal Infallability is not quite how those outside (and even those inside the Church) understand it.

All it means is that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is guaranteed not to teach error as regards faith or moral when speaking ex-cathedra). This does not include however any statement he makes as a private person or a private scholar. Infallibility also applies to the body of bishops as a whole when in moral unity, they teach a doctrine as true.

Think about it, if the Pope and the college of bishops is not infallible, how do we know that the Bible is truly the word of God since they were the ones who decreed it to be so?

When you come to think of it,

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t think the apostles taught that extensively on the Eucharist, otherwise, we’d have clear and widespread agreement on what they taught; instead, we see different men positing different and differing ideas as to just what took place on that night regarding the bread and wine.

From the Church’s infancy, she has always taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is only in the 1500s that different opinions took hold

Which goes back to Ralphinals question a few posts back which you never answered. Did Christ allow his Church to be in heresy for the first 1500 years of her life?

The early Church are in a better position to understand what Christ meant.

 

[benedictus2]

I’ve cited passages for you:Jer. 15:16.—“Thy words were found, and I did eat them.” The rest of the verse explains the figure.Ezek. 3:1.—“Son of man … eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel”: i.e., consider it, and get the contents of this roll by heart, and then go and speak it to the house of Israel, as is clear from verse 4: “Speak with my words unto them.”

The eating above does not pertain to flesh.

John 6:51.—“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever”: i.e., just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.

So, verse 53: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”: i.e., except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you. **That this cannot refer to the Lord’s supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted, and the words could not have been understood (as they were) **

You are right the words could not have been understood as they were by the apostles as pertaining to the Last Supper. They remained because they had no one else to go to as pointed out by Peter.

This whole discourse is a preamble to the last supper so that they will understand when the event finally took place. His words at the Last Supper “This is my body” will not make much sense without this discourse.

and, further, that it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper.

If you remember, it shut out a lot of people not only those aged and infirmed, because only the twelve were with HIm at the supper. But He does tell them to do it in remembrance of Him so that everyone else may partake. And that is what happens now in the Eucharist. And the infirmed and aged are brought the Eucharist at home so that they too may partake.

By comparing verses 47 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it will be seen that believing on Christ

is exactly the same thing as eating and drinking of His flesh and blood.If you look closely at what is transpiring, Jesus is actually hammering out a point here. This is probably one of his discourses where he kept repeating his point. He starts off saying He is the bread and then makes it even more specific by saying “my flesh”.

The jews then ask “how can this man give us his flesh to eat? (so obviously not understanding this figuratively). But instead of saying, " what I mean is if you believe in me etc…”, He instead re-iterates that they have to eat “his flesh” and then so as to make sure they understand he even adds " drink my blood". Instead of softening His message He makes it even harder.

And as mentioned in a previous post “EATING THE FLESH" IS NOT A HEBRAISM FOR BELIEVING”

“Not to be” is a Hebraism for to be abject and vile, to be nothing (1 Cor. 1:28); while on the other hand,.

“To salute.” Acts 18:22: “And when he had … gone up, and saluted the church”: i.e., and had held familiar intercourse with them. Compare 20:1. See also 21:7, 19; 25:13. This is shown from the opposite; 2 Kings 4:29: “Salute him not”: i.e., do not stop to talk with him. So Luke 10:4.“To touch” for to hurt or to do any harm to. Gen. 26:29. Ruth 2:9. Job 1:11; 2:5; 19:21. Ps. 105:15. Jer. 12:14. Ezek. 17:10. Zech. 2:8. Heb. 11:28. 1 John 5:18..****“To see another” is used for making war with him, or of meeting him in battle. 2 Kings 14:8, 11; 23:29, etc.

.“****“To confess” is used of abiding in the faith, and walking according to truth. 1 John 4:15. Rom. 10:9, 10. So also Matt. 10:32.“Able to say” is used of being able really and truly to affirm from the heart. Prov. 20:9.I Cor. 12:3.—“No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” Any one can utter the words; but no one can truly, with the whole heart, own Jesus as his Lord, and take Him for his Master, but by the Holy Ghost.

There is a lot of non-sequiturs here. That they are Hebraisms has no relation to the current topic and only serves as a distraction.

“To eat and drink” is a Hebraism used not merely for chewing food or swallowing any liquid, but for good living and drinking wine; Matt. 11:18, 19 with Luke 7:33, 34 and Prov. 31:4.

If eat and drink are used on its own I might even agree with you. But as mentioned before the phrase to “eat the flesh of someone” in Hebrew means to do someone an injury.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I think the word used here in Greek was “trogon” which is to nibble or to chew.

I am not sure about this but “eating and drinking” are not idioms for “understanding with the mind” in Greek. This may be so in the English language but in the language that Christ would have spoken which was Aramaic and in the written gospel which is Greek I don’t think such an idiom exists.

And Christ did not bother to say " Oh I meant it only figuratively".

And when his hearers interpreted this precisely in the way He meant which is obviously offensive to them, they left.

**Gabriel of 12
You are correct they are not idioms in the form; as stated by sandusky, this is a new argument invention to discredit the Real presence again, dont fall for it. Eat my flesh, drink my blood to mean come and believe… is a far cry from the original interpretation. I would challenge Sandusky for a sholary support and name the theologian, so as to report him to the authorities.

The “eating the flesh” and “drink the blood” in the Aramaic Jesus spoke would translate "to persecute and assault him if he was speaking figuratively. Here are some more scriptures to support this symbolic** interpretation of the statement “eat the flesh” and “drink the blood”, Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:18-20, 49:26, Micah 3:3, 2Samuel 23:15-17, Revelation 17:6, 16. This confirms only that Jesus did not speak figuratively here, only Literally to eat his flesh and drink his blood, If he meant it figuratively, Jesus would have said ( unless you persecute me and assault me you will have eternal life ), this makes nonesense to the speach of Jesus and his teaching from John 6:53 and following.

Peace and now take it away…

So when Christ said “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” he was very emphatic about that. He re-iterates this in the entire passage.

And Christ did not bother to say " Oh I meant it only figuratively".

 

[sandusky]

The “eating the flesh” and “drink the blood” in the Aramaic Jesus spoke would translate "to persecute and assault him if he was speaking figuratively. Here are some more scriptures to support this symbolic interpretation of the statement “eat the flesh” and “drink the blood”, Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:18-20, 49:26, Micah 3:3, 2Samuel 23:15-17, Revelation 17:6, 16. This confirms only that Jesus did not speak figuratively here, only Literally to eat his flesh and drink his blood, If he meant it figuratively, Jesus would have said ( unless you persecute me and assault me you will have eternal life ), this makes nonesense to the speach of Jesus and his teaching from John 6:53 and following.

Peace and now take it away…

Name an apostle who teaches what you’re teaching.

 

[Mickey]

Evangelicals are picking up the pieces and converting millions to “bathed blood of Jesus”…

You may believe how you wish. There is only one truth. There are not various “shades of gray”.

Many are called, few are chosen.

 

[ralphinal]

Name an apostle who teaches what you’re teaching.

Conversely, which Apostle said that Jesus was NOT speaking literally…

 

[sandusky]

Conversely, which Apostle said that Jesus was NOT speaking literally…

Is your answer none of them, Ralph?

 

[ralphinal]

Is your answer none of them, Ralph?

Yes. I see you holding a postion that says that scripture points to that, but none of them ever come out and say that Jesus said that this was figurative language or that he was using an analogy. He generally explained when they did not understand, even if it was just to the Twelve. In this one case, nothing was ever cleared up.

 

[rinnie]

What I was taught anyone who believes in the Father, Son, and Holy SPirit and excepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and obey’s his commandments is a Christian.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Yes. I see you holding a postion that says that scripture points to that, but none of them ever come out and say that Jesus said that this was figurative language or that he was using an analogy. He generally explained when they did not understand, even if it was just to the Twelve. In this one case, nothing was ever cleared up.

This is one of the things that bugs me about being Protestant. If Jesus says that the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, then he is using an analogy. But he never said this bread is like my body.
He never said this wine is something quite similar to my blood.

He never said this wine, or any other liquid you might prefer such as grape juice, koolaid or such.

Being a Protestant means turning off parts of your brain when reading the scriptures. Pray for me and my wife so that I can come home!!!

 

[thirdn6]

What I was taught anyone who believes in the Father, Son, and Holy SPirit and excepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and obey’s his commandments is a Christian.

You probably meant “accepts”.

 

[Mickey]

Name an apostle who teaches what you’re teaching.

St Paul.

 

[With_Questions]

This is one of the things that bugs me about being Protestant. If Jesus says that the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, then he is using an analogy. But he never said this bread is like my body.

Now I myself am undecided on the Real Presence. But I am going to give you the best counter argument I have heard.

First of all, there are other places in Scripture where Jesus uses other analogies with grammatical forms of the verb is. For example He says, I am the door, I am the good shepherd, I am the light of the world.

Second of all, in normal English usage if I for example point to George Washington on a dollar bill and say “This is George Washington”, you understand that is is really not George Washington but a representation of George.

Now all of this certainly does not disprove the Real Presence. But it does beg the question on why should I interpret this passage to be literal “is” when I do not interpret similar constructs in every day life literally.

 

[Mickey]

But it does beg the question on why should I interpret this passage to be literal “is” when I do not interpret similar constructs in every day life literally.

Well, if Sacred Scriptures and 2000 years of Sacred Tradition is not convincing for you, it would be good to find something written by someone who may have been a disciple of one of the Apostles. Hey, wait a minute! St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St John the Apostle (Evangelist). What did St Ignatius have to say?

But look at the men who have those perverted notions about the grace of Jesus Christ…They will not admit the Eucharist is the self same body of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His goodness afterwards raised up again.
St. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1

Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.
St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

 

[With_Questions]

Well, if Sacred Scriptures and 2000 years of Sacred Tradition is not convincing for you, it would be good to find something written by someone who may have been a disciple of one of the Apostles. Hey, wait a minute! St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St John the Apostle (Evangelist). What did St Ignatius have to say?

But look at the men who have those perverted notions about the grace of Jesus Christ…They will not admit the Eucharist is the self same body of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His goodness afterwards raised up again.
St. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1

Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.
St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

Now if the point you are making is that the earliest Christians believed in the real presence and that the best interpretation of Scripture is the one that lines up with theirs, I am fine with that. Now I don’t know enough on this topic to definitely confirm that assumption is the case, but I can see your reasoning.

Now even if I were to accept that reasoning, the issue then becomes “whose real presence”. I have a preference to Wesley’s myself. But that is another day.

My only point is in response to the contention that the one definitive interpretation of these Scriptures is the one that you have provided. I just don’t think that is the case. I think at best Scripture has some amount of ambiguity here.

For myself I think it best on a personal level to receive communion as though I were receiving the body and blood of Christ and then leave the chemistry and physics of what actually happens to the Lord.

 

[Mickey]

I think at best Scripture has some amount of ambiguity here.

Sacred Scripture is not ambiguous. The Real Presence is clearly taught by the Word, 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, and the earliest Christians (many of whom were disciples of the Apostles). If ambiguity entered the picture, it is when the reformation decided to teach many doctrines that were opposed to the Apostolic Church. I am not trying to be contentious here, and I apologize if I have offended you in any way–but there is no question that the Holy Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

Slava Isusu Christu!

 

[With_Questions]

Sacred Scripture is not ambiguous. The Real Presence is clearly taught by the Word, 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, and the earliest Christians (many of whom were disciples of the Apostles). If ambiguity entered the picture, it is when the reformation decided to teach many doctrines that were opposed to the Apostolic Church. I am not trying to be contentious here, and I apologize if I have offended you in any way–but there is no question that the Holy Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

Slava Isusu Christu!

You have not offended me in any way. You are not even close to making my ignore list.

I can understand that if you have a three-level authority system of Tradition, Magisterium, Scripture with all three being equal, that you probably are going to believe in the Real Presence. And I will respect that.

From where I sit, your argument is most convincing when (1) you are arguing against somebody who is trying to Scripturally disprove it (I have not seen it Scripturally disproven either) (2) when you supplement the Scriptural argument with the historical argument as you have done.

Your arguement is weakest when you use just Scripture and claim that your interpretation of Scripture is the one definitive one. It just is not there.
.