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

[rinnie]

You probably meant “accepts”.

Sorry, thanks, what a dummy I can be a times!

 

[Mickey]

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…

I use the old fashioned two way system of Scripture and Tradition. I am Orthodox.

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.

It is not my interpretation. You forget that the first few centuries after Christ’s Resurrection did not have a compiled Bible to read–and most people were illiterate. The Real Presence was always taught and always believed. The pagans, not understanding the Christians, used to call them cannibals before they would murder them (creating holy martyrs). Sadly, some of today’s protestants continue to throw that label at the Apostolic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Good quotes. I’m surprised they aren’t referenced more often.

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

St Paul.

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.

Where did Paul teach that, Mickey?

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

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.

Generally? Jesus explains (vv 6:63, cf 68). Jesus defines coming and believing as that which alleviates hunger and thirst. When the question is posed as to what one must do to be saved, the answer is “believe in Jesus Christ.”

 

[benedictus2]

Generally? Jesus explains (vv 6:63, cf 68). Jesus defines coming and believing as that which alleviates hunger and thirst.

In case you have not read my and ralphinals previous posts, the exact phrase “EAT MY FLESH” figuratively means " INJUR ME".
Christ cannot be saying THOSE WHO INUR ME WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.

You cannot keep going back to your old meaning because it has already been shown that your meaning is incorrect.

To disprove our claim, you will have to give proof that “EAT MY FLESH” does not mean " TO DO SOMEONE AN INJURY".

The discussion now centres on which figure of speech applies on this phrase.

When the question is posed as to what one must do to be saved, the answer is “believe in Jesus Christ.”

I think this position was already disproven on another thread, if you remember.

Some passages do say that, but other passages don’t.
One particular line from Jesus goes that it is not those who call him Lord, Lord who will be saved but those who “DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

St Paul.

Thanks Mickey good answer; shall I give the scripture?

1Corinthians 11:23
11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

Cant get any more Literal body and blood consumption,from the greatest Evangelist the world has ever known who attached a curse if you do not discern the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Please review the other scriptures posted that take the phrase “eat the body, drink the blood” from a symbolic meaning.

Peace

 

[sandusky]

benedictus2:

In case you have not read my and ralphinals previous posts, the exact phrase “EAT MY FLESH” figuratively means " INJUR ME".
Christ cannot be saying THOSE WHO INUR ME WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.

You cannot keep going back to your old meaning because it has already been shown that your meaning is incorrect.

To disprove our claim, you will have to give proof that “EAT MY FLESH” does not mean " TO DO SOMEONE AN INJURY".

The discussion now centres on which figure of speech applies on this phrase.

That’s not the context of the passage, but the imposition of a foreign context by O’Brien. In the context of the passage, Jesus defines coming and believing as the alleviation of spiritual hunger and thirst. (click here)
benetictus2:

I think this position was already disproven on another thread, if you remember.

Some passages do say that, but other passages don’t.
One particular line from Jesus goes that it is not those who call him Lord, Lord who will be saved but those who “DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER”

”By grace you have been saved through faith (belief).”

It’s about faith.

 

[sandusky]

Gabriel of 12:

Thanks Mickey good answer; shall I give the scripture?

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.

The question is, where is the above taught by the apostles?

1 Cor 11 doesn’t teach the above. The “body” (singular) that’s not being discerned is the “body of believers (cf vv17-22);” notice that those “eating and drinking,” are not discerning “the body” only, and not “the body and the blood.”

 

[benedictus2]

That’s not the context of the passage, but the imposition of a foreign context by O’Brien. In the context of the passage, Jesus defines coming and believing as the alleviation of spiritual hunger and thirst. (click here)

Sorry, but it is. O’Brien did not impose a foreign context. O’Brien merely explained what the passage “to eat the flesh of someone” means to Hebrews because Jesus is a Jew. “Eating” on its own may mean coming to believe in Hebrew, but once you add the words “my flesh” it changes that meaning completely.

Please re-read my previous post. I explained that in more detail there.

”By grace you have been saved through faith (belief).”

It’s about faith.

The phrase I quoted did not mean that. Stop going back to your old lines and address the line I quoted.

I agreed that the verse you quoted was about faith but not the one I quoted.

 

[sandusky]

Sorry, but it is. O’Brien did not impose a foreign context. O’Brien merely explained what the passage “to eat the flesh of someone” means to Hebrews because Jesus is a Jew. “Eating” on its own may mean coming to believe in Hebrew, but once you add the words “my flesh” it changes that meaning completely.

Please re-read my previous post. I explained that in more detail there.

I don’t need to re-read it. You’re not the first person with whom I’ve had this discussion concerning O’Brien’s imposition of an outside-the-immediate-context, context.

benedictus2:

The phrase I quoted did not mean that. Stop going back to your old lines and address the line I quoted.

I agreed that the verse you quoted was about faith but not the one I quoted.

The one you quoted is irrelevant. One is saved by grace through faith, and that not out of himself, nor by works (cf Titus 3:5).

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t need to re-read it. You’re not the first person with whom I’ve had this discussion concerning O’Brien’s imposition of an outside-the-immediate-context, context.

And you are not the first person who has been wrong about this.

First you say that “eating and drinking” is a Hebraism for coming and believing.

Then when we point out that it is not a Hebraism for the entire phrase “eat the flesh of someone” you say that we are imposing a foreigh context. You are the one who brought in the Hebraism issue in the first place. But can’t admit that you got it wrong.

Make up your mind. You are departing from this Hebraism meaning because it has been shown that you are using the wrong Hebraism because you truncated (in the same manner that you do the Bible) the phrase.

The one you quoted is irrelevant. One is saved by grace through faith, and that not out of himself, nor by works (cf Titus 3:5).

It is only irrelevant only in your mind.

What do you think the passage I quoted mean then, if it has nothing to do with salvation?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The question is, where is the above taught by the apostles?

1 Cor 11 doesn’t teach the above. The “body” (singular) that’s not being discerned is the “body of believers (cf vv17-22);” notice that those “eating and drinking,” are not discerning “the body” only, and not “the body and the blood.”

Let me clarify; Jesus states “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood to have eternal life”

Jesus states again at the last supper, “take eat this is my body, the cup like wise, take drink this is my blood in the new covenant of my blood”

Sandusky, you claim Jesus flesh to eat and drink of blood refers to a figuratively speech. Which Paul and Peter disagree with you.

1Cor.11, Paul is handing down to the Corithians the true body and blood, in the Eucharist from the species of Bread, and cup of blessing, exactly almost verbatim as Jesus gave the Eucharist to his apostles, then to repeat it by “do this in rememberance of me”. Figuratively speech need not be repeated in a liturgy as handed down from Jesus at the last supper.

Peter boldly states in all scripture that we are partakers of his divinity. see 2 Peter 1:4, there is no figuratively speech here either.

To eat the flesh, or drink the blood, when used in scripture figuratively means to “persecute”, which I provided examples for you from scripture.

Never does eat the flesh, or drink the blood when used in scripture to mean figuratively does it mean to “come to believe” which is a “new meaning” interpretation that you are attempting to force in the speech of Jesus. Jesus meant what he said literally, or else many of his disciples would not have left him. And they were there with Jesus when he spoke this Literally in John 6 53… These Jews would have known right away if Jesus was speaking figuratively, because they heard his tone of voice. Jesus tone of voice just like at the last supper was very strong and taken literally by all those present.

Peace

 

[sandusky]

And you are not the first person who has been wrong about this.

First you say that “eating and drinking” is a Hebraism for coming and believing.

Then when we point out that it is not a Hebraism for the entire phrase “eat the flesh of someone” you say that we are imposing a foreigh context. You are the one who brought in the Hebraism issue in the first place. But can’t admit that you got it wrong.

Make up your mind. You are departing from this Hebraism meaning because it has been shown that you are using the wrong Hebraism because you truncated (in the same manner that you do the Bible) the phrase.

I said Jesus defines coming and believing in v35.

benedictus2:

It is only irrelevant only in your mind.

What do you think the passage I quoted mean then, if it has nothing to do with salvation?

That those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom, and that Jesus knows them (cf Jn 10:27), but He never knew those spoken of in Mt 7:21, the verse you reference.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

1Corinthians 11:23
11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

What is your interpretation of verse 29, when one eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judment on himself?

Are you interpreting that the one has to discern the body of believers? I dont understand your interpretation of what Paul teaches and repeats what Jesus taught about his body and blood. Could you please re-read the above scripture and tell my how you cannot conclude that Paul is not teaching but handing on what Jesus instituted at the last supper.

Peace

 

[sandusky]

Let me clarify; Jesus states “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood to have eternal life”

ralphinal doesn’t agree that Jesus means “eternal life.” Do you disagree with ralphinal? I thought Catholics were united in what they believe? Which of you two Catholics am I to believe, believes the actual Catholic teaching?
Gabriel of 12:

Jesus states again at the last supper, “take eat this is my body, the cup like wise, take drink this is my blood in the new covenant of my blood”

Sandusky, you claim Jesus flesh to eat and drink of blood refers to a figuratively speech. Which Paul and Peter disagree with you.

1Cor.11, Paul is handing down to the Corithians the true body and blood, in the Eucharist from the species of Bread, and cup of blessing, exactly almost verbatim as Jesus gave the Eucharist to his apostles, then to repeat it by “do this in rememberance of me”. Figuratively speech need not be repeated in a liturgy as handed down from Jesus at the last supper.

The “body” that is not being discerned in 1 Cor 11, is the “body of believers at Corinth.” Read the context starting in v17.

It’s not “the body and the blood” that are not being discerned, but “the body” only, Christ’s body, the Church (cf vv17-22).
Gabriel of 12:

Peter boldly states in all scripture that we are partakers of his divinity. see 2 Peter 1:4, there is no figuratively speech here either.

Peter’s not speaking of the eucharist in that passage.
Gabriel of 12:

To eat the flesh, or drink the blood, when used in scripture figuratively means to “persecute”, which I provided examples for you from scripture.

Those passage you cited are not the context of John 6; John 6 is the context of John 6.
Gabriel of 12:

Never does eat the flesh, or drink the blood when used in scripture to mean figuratively does it mean to “come to believe” which is a “new meaning” interpretation that you are attempting to force in the speech of Jesus.

You’re the one forcing other scriptures that have nothing to do with John 6. The context of John 6 is John 6.
Gabriel of 12:

Jesus meant what he said literally, or else many of his disciples would not have left him. And they were there with Jesus when he spoke this Literally in John 6 53… These Jews would have known right away if Jesus was speaking figuratively, because they heard his tone of voice. Jesus tone of voice just like at the last supper was very strong and taken literally by all those present.

You’re full of assumptions.

I agree that those who left understood Jesus to be speaking literally, and they were wrong.

 

[sandusky]

1Corinthians 11:23
11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

What is your interpretation of verse 29, when one eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judment on himself?

That the body is the church at Corinth (cf vv17-22). It’s not the eucharist, otherwise, they would not be discerning “the body and the blood.”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ralphinal doesn’t agree that Jesus means “eternal life.” Do you disagree with ralphinal? I thought Catholics were united in what they believe? Which of you two Catholics am I to believe, believes the actual Catholic teaching?

Never mind what Ralphinal or myself tell you listen to Jesus from John 6:54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,

The “body” that is not being discerned in 1 Cor 11, is the “body of believers at Corinth.” Read the context starting in v17.

The Eucharist speech from Paul about the body and blood of Jesus begins in Verse 23, What are you doing in verse 17? Of course Paul is addressing the body of believers at Corinth, Paul disitinctly Explains the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist in bread and cup of blessing, which is the third cup of wine drink from the last supper. Stick to the context of Paul is describing from verse 23 on… to the curse. Why would Paul place a curse of body of believers for speaking about a body of believers ?

It’s not “the body and the blood” that are not being discerned, but “the body” only, Christ’s body, the Church (cf vv17-22).

Ok, Paul does speak from chapter 10 through 11 about 2 meals, the agape meal and the Eucharist, I can see one getting confused here. We are focusing on what Paul is handing on in the Eucharist celebration, where only the cup of blessing is made other than the Jewish passover meal which Jesus fulfilled at the last supper and in his passion literally.

Peter’s not speaking of the eucharist in that passage.

No of course not Peter is talking about in general how we are partakers of Jesus divinity. This is done through the sacraments, and the Eucharist is the blessed Sacrament, where we partake of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity. Do you believe you partake of Jesus divinity? if so, how?

Those passage you cited are not the context of John 6; John 6 is the context of John 6.

Iam quoting from John 6:53 and following, what your doing in verse 35 only begins to introduce the bread of life discourse.

You’re the one forcing other scriptures that have nothing to do with John 6. The context of John 6 is John 6.

**Here are the scriptures that speak figuratively about persecuting or assaulting someone using the “eat the flesh or to drink the blood” Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 9:18-20, 49:26, Micah 3:3, 2Samuel 23:15-17, Revelation 17:6, 16.

John 6:53 begins Jesus speaking literally “to eat my body, and drink my blood”

Again no where in all of scripture does the phrase or staement “eat my flesh, drink my blood” to interpret to mean “come and believe”**

You’re full of assumptions.

Believe me I assume nothing when it comes to my salvation. You asked for an apostle who taught this literal true body and blood presence in the Eucharist as Jesus did, Paul is one, I gave you Peter to indicate a stronger Traditional belief in Jesus Literal presence in the Catholic church, because we partake of his divinity also. The scriptures have provided your proof, not an assumption.

I agree that those who left understood Jesus to be speaking literally, and they were wrong.

**Why were they wrong?, because they understood Jesus speaking literally and could not accept this “hard saying” as recorded in John 6.60, or were they wrong for walking away from Jesus literal teaching about eating his true flesh, and drink his true blood in his Eucharist. Just as you appear to be doing walking away from this hard teaching. Maybe this will help you, “it is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail” John 6:63

Remember faith is a gift from God, and faith is the realization of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Sorry as a Catholic were taught to love the Word of God not remember scripture passages. Forgot where this faith scripture is, drawing a blank:shrug:**

 

[benedictus2]

I said Jesus defines coming and believing in v35.

But that is just it. **He did NOT. **Or we would not be having this discussion. That is circular reasoning.

If He was defining anything in that passage at all, it would actually be the other way around. The latter verses define verse 35.
Anyone who comes to Him will not hunger precisely because He will give them His flesh for food. Anyone who believes in Him will not thirst because He will give them His blood to drink.

That those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom, and that Jesus knows them (cf Jn 10:27), but He never knew those spoken of in Mt 7:21, the verse you reference.

And you recon to enter His kingdom has no relation to Salvation?

 

[sandusky]

But that is just it. **He did NOT. **Or we would not be having this discussion. That is circular reasoning.

No, that’s what He did in v35.

benedictus2:

And you recon to enter His kingdom has no relation to Salvation?

I don’t “recon” that.