Communion

[Mikeoffaith]

The earth rotating on its axis once every 24 hours is proven by science it has nothing to do with faith.

When Jesus said this is my body he was using the bread because it was Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread so bread was one of the main staples for that meal and for every meal. Bread was given from God to Moses and his people while they were in the desert. Jesus has called himself the bread of life, but Jesus wasn’t really bread. He used bread because people and the disciples could relate to. It like saying in a meeting that this pen is the tower that is going to be built. He uses the pen as a symbol of the tower that is going to be build, but the pen is not really the tower. In the same way Jesus uses bread to symbolize his body but the bread is really not his body. Its something his disciples could relate to. And besided Jesus didn’t say he is present in the bread, he just said this is my body not this is my body that I will always be present in.

For me when Christ says, “This is my body.” He is truly identifying himself with the bread. The two are one. He doesn’t say, “This bread is like my body.” Comparing this with other places, for instance, where Christ specifically says, “The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed.”, as opposed to “The Kingdom of God is a mustard seed.”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Of course he was speaking figuratively when he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” He was asserting to those disciples that he was in fact God incarnate. That’s the first step to becoming a Christian, believing that Jesus is God, just as Jesus pointed out a few verses earlier, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” So, when they start their grumbling that you pointed out, they are asserting their disbelief in His being God, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

So, you are correct, it was not ONLY the matter of eating his flesh and drinking his blood that the disciples were responding to when they said, “this is a hard teaching”; it began with their utter disbelief that he was God.

He moves on from this pure figurative language when He asserts even more boldly than before, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven.(vs 51)”

Are you saying that while He was using figurative language before that now Jesus is saying that He really is a piece of bread?

To which they again assert their disbelief in His being God and, simultaneously, assert their disbelief that he can in fact, give us his flesh to eat, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (vs 52)”

Jn.1: 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. Jesus was talking of the words that He fed them with this is confirmed by both Jesus and Peter

Jn6:63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jn6:68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

 

[mortonsam]

As it is a human expression of the real presence, stated by Christ Himself - “This is my body”, etc - it is far more scriptural than the expression of the bread and wine as being symbolic of Christ’s body and blood.

Jon

Oh yes and I agree. I am in no way saying that this is merely symbolic. I am just trying to figure out how it is that if one doesn’t believe in transubstantiation, then they cannot believe in the Real Presence either. Given what Scripture says on this matter, it’s a false dicotomy.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Thanks Jon for rescuing me there. Appreciate it.

To mortonsam, Jesus did not say, “When two or three of you gather in my name, I am in your mist”. He said, as he took the bread and the wine, “This (this bread/this wine as he touched the bread and the wine with his hand, specifically referring to the bread and the wine) is my body, this is my blood”. And yes, like Jon said, it is right out of the Gospel of John.

Actually, I think that the whole Last Supper, “This is my body, This is my blood” is actually in the Synoptic Gospels and not in John. I think in John it’s just one big long discourse on “I am the bread of life.” But call me out if I’m wrong, it’s a little late.

 

[JonNC]

Oh yes and I agree. I am in no way saying that this is merely symbolic. **I am just trying to figure out how it is that if one doesn’t believe in transubstantiation, then they cannot believe in the Real Presence either. ** Given what Scripture says on this matter, it’s a false dicotomy.

I’m not sure this is the POV of Catholic theologians any longer, though it may still be amongst some apologists. A joint Lutheran/Vatican document says the following:

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

49.In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

50.The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

51.The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

 

[Reuben_J]

Actually, I think that the whole Last Supper, “This is my body, This is my blood” is actually in the Synoptic Gospels and not in John. I think in John it’s just one big long discourse on “I am the bread of life.” But call me out if I’m wrong, it’s a little late.

Yes, you are right. It’s an honest mistake. I kept on thinking about John 6 but the paschal meal was in the Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26, Mk 14 & Lk 22). Thanks for pointing that out.