''Do this in memory of me''

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ag_not
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reuben_J said:
I like that. If Jesus says it’s real, it’s sure is. 🙂

Did not Jesus says," Amen, Amen, I say to you … " for emphasis? There is certainly no doubt that verse meant to be taken literally.

The only point left for contention is whether this saying is for the disciples only at that moment and should not be translated to the present day Holy Eucharist.
Click to expand...
What is real food to Jesus?
Food for the flesh or food for the spirit?
 
Since we are talking about Jesus only referrring to eating literal food, perhaps someone could explain what Jesus was “eating” at the well when His disciples asked Jesus to eat: “But He said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.” (John 4:32)

Jesus’ meat was to do and finish the will of the Father, not to literally “eat” something in a physical manner. The disciples were being trained not to jump only at the literal meaning for the word “eat”.
 
steve_b said:
Right after Jesus says in several different ways that unless you eat MY flesh, you don’t have life in you, and by implication, He won’t raise that person up on the last day… He doesn’t then undo what He just taught saying the flesh profits nothing? He’s NOT saying eating HIS flesh profits nothing. He’s saying THEIR flesh profits nothing.

IOW, my words cover ALL realities, the seen and unseen, the physical and the spiritual… There is NOTHING His words don’t cover. It’s not either/or but both

It is a matter of faith and obedience to faith.

When the Isrealites were told to eat the lamb and sprinkle the blood of that lamb over the door post, and the angel of death would passover that house, they did what they were told or the first born male in that family would die that night. Those who were obedient and did what God told them to do, lived. Those who didn’t, died.

The passover meal is a prefigurement to the Eucharist.

BTW, it takes a valid ministerial priesthood to confect the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Only the first Passover was the actual thing. All later Passovers were in “memory” of that first one, not the same thing as the actual one. It was celebrated in “remembrance” of the original redemption from slavery in Egypt. They were not allowed to eat the blood either.

“Confecting” the Lord’s Supper is an unbiblical invention of man. Jesus blessing the bread in thanksgiving to God is not “confecting” the bread.
 
brkn1 said:
Since we are talking about Jesus only referrring to eating literal food, perhaps someone could explain what Jesus was “eating” at the well when His disciples asked Jesus to eat: “But He said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.” (John 4:32)

Jesus’ meat was to do and finish the will of the Father, not to literally “eat” something in a physical manner. The disciples were being trained not to jump only at the literal meaning for the word “eat”.
Click to expand...
but the infallible teachings of the Church tell us that the Holy Eucharist contains the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ
 
brkn1 said:
Since we are talking about Jesus only referrring to eating literal food, perhaps someone could explain what Jesus was “eating” at the well when His disciples asked Jesus to eat: “But He said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.” (John 4:32)

Jesus’ meat was to do and finish the will of the Father, not to literally “eat” something in a physical manner. The disciples were being trained not to jump only at the literal meaning for the word “eat”.
Click to expand...
Jesus twice spoke of His food. Once to do the will of the Father and the other time every word that proceeds from the Father.
In either case it is what we also should “eat”
 
Christ also told the Samaritan woman that His words were water for our thirst, does this mean he was spitting as he spoke the water for her soul? No, He was speaking symbolically.

I think that there is a reason that He broke the first bread and drank the first wine of communion BEFORE His sacrifice. He said “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” How could the wine be His blood that was poured out if it hadn’t been poured out yet? Because it represented the blood to be poured out for us, a symbol of that blood.

If we do not drink or eat that blood or body we forget all that Christ did for us, Faith breaks down, and we have no life in us with Christ. It is to remember that sacrifice and acknowledge His forgiveness that brings life into us through Christ.
 
Singinbeauty said:
He said “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” How could the wine be His blood that was poured out if it hadn’t been poured out yet?
Click to expand...
Mark 14:24 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. (DRA)

24And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which **shall **be shed for many.
 
Peace Hisalone,
Hisalone said:
You missed the point that flesh births flesh and Spirit births Spirit exactly what Jesus says in verse 63 how can you not see something so plain
Click to expand...
Jesus just finished a discourse repeatedly saying His Flesh gives life, that His Body and Blood are real food and drink, and that we are to chew His flesh for eternal life. Verse 63 doesn’t nullify anything Jesus said before it, everything still stands.

You can’t just isolate this verse and make believe that the 62 verses before it didn’t occur. In fact, you have to go the very beginning of this chapter to understand what Jesus is saying.

The followers that said to Him, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” are the same followers that witnessed the miraculous multiplication of loaves in verses 1 through 15, and declared Him a prophet (verse 14). However, when Jesus revealed a supernatural truth, namely the necessity to chew and eat His flesh for eternal life, they turned away from Him because they could not understand it – much like many Protestants today! – and so they walked away from Him.

Jesus then indicates that Spirit and Life was not in the food He miraculously multiplied, but in the Supernatural Truth He revealed that they rejected (verse 63). This is why Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” (verse 64) Therefore we see that Faith is a gift from God and for us to accept the Truths that are beyond our natural capacity require grace.

Thus we see Jesus was in no way denying anything He said before verse 63, He was indicating the valueless ‘belief’ of those who accepted Him because they were mesmerized by a miracle, and not because they possessed the genuine God given faith.

Hope this helps,

God bless,
Tomasz
 
Ag_not said:
Mark 14:24 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. (DRA)

24And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which **shall **be shed for many.
Click to expand...
You humble me. You make me realize that though i say i have a passion for apologetics, I am not ready to take up the mantle of “apologist” quite yet:o
 
Hisalone,
Hisalone said:
Consumption in biblical language is not used for destruction it is used for “experience” many of the verses are an experience of destruction but many are not.
Click to expand...
Take a look at these quotes. They indicate the metaphorical usage of the term “eat flesh” and “drink blood” mean to persecute, to destroy:

**“I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh;
they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine.
Then all mankind will know
that I, the LORD, am your Savior,
your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”
Isaiah 49:26

"On the right they will devour,
but still be hungry;
on the left they will eat,
but not be satisfied.
Each will feed on the flesh of his own offspring
Isaiah 9:20

"When evil men advance against me
to devour my flesh,
when my enemies and my foes attack me,
they will stumble and fall.
Psalm 27:2**
 
CWBetts said:
but the infallible teachings of the Church tell us that the Holy Eucharist contains the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ
Click to expand...
Yes, your Church does say that Jesus was saying that we must literally drink (eat) His Blood.

The problem with that interpretation is that it contradicts the OT law of the Bible, which was still in effect at that time.
In (Leviticus 17:10), the law says: “And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth ANY manner of blood; I will set my face aginst that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.”

Jesus never would contradict the law of the Bible, since He claimed: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17)

Jesus also said: “If he called them gods, unto the word of God came, and the Scripture CANNOT BE BROKEN;” (John 10:35)
Jesus confirms that God’s word cannot be contradicted. Any scriptural interpretation that contradicts other parts of Scripture, must be rejected as an incorrect or false interpretation.

Jesus asked “Which of you convinceth Me of sin?..” (John 8:46)
If Jesus was telling those still under the law to literally drink (eat) blood, then it could honestly be claimed that Jesus was guilty of the sin of contradicting the law that said not to eat blood.
They were still under the law that Jesus came to fulfill.
 
Peace Brkn,
brkn1 said:
Yes, your Church does say that Jesus was saying that we must literally drink (eat) His Blood.
Click to expand...
It is the universal belief of all Christians of Apostolic origin. It’s not limited to the “Roman Church,” as it is believed by Greeks, Russians, Copts, Syriacs, Syro-Malabar Christians, etc, etc, etc.

The disbelief of a 15th century German named Martin Luther does not discount this universal Apostolic teaching which Christians have always believed.
If Jesus was telling those still under the law to literally drink (eat) blood, then it could honestly be claimed that Jesus was guilty of the sin of contradicting the law that said not to eat blood.
They were still under the law that Jesus came to fulfill.
Click to expand...
The statement that He came to fulfill and not to abrogate does not mean He did not change the law by His Divine authority. Just consider the law about divorce, which God permitted for the Jews but Jesus forbade. The Jews don’t acknowledge His Divine authority so to them He was “breaking” the law, but in reality He was fulfilling the will of God.

Now the verse from Leviticus forbids us from the blood of animals. This is actually one of the disciplines the Apostles bound on the Gentiles, and in fact is still kept among many Christians… even though they still believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Bread and Wine, and thus they acknowledge they drink His Blood!

In face of John 6, I am convinced that Jesus said His Body and Blood are real food and drink, that we are to chew His Body, and that doing so gives Eternal Life. All this outweighs your interpretation of Leviticus and in fact we can say there is no contradiction. I can still refuse to drink the blood of animals but affirm the Supernatural Drink of the Blood of Christ because it is on a totally different level.

So far no Protestant has actually looked into what Jesus said in John 6, with the exception of isolating verse 63 and interpreting it in a way that contradicts everything before it!

We acknowledge it’s not an easy belief, the idea that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus, His Whole Self, is present under the species of Consecrated Bread and Wine, but God has given us the grace to believe what Jesus taught, and we get to have the profit promised of this teaching!

Hope this helps,

God bless,
Tomasz
 
brkn1 said:
Only the first Passover was the actual thing. All later Passovers were in “memory” of that first one, not the same thing as the actual one. It was celebrated in “remembrance” of the original redemption from slavery in Egypt. They were not allowed to eat the blood either.
Click to expand...
I said that meal was a prefigurement of the Eucharist. A type and shadow of the supernatural fulfillment that would come. What they remembered in successive meals was still a type and shadow of the supernatural fulfillment to come.

You’re trying to reason your way through this without embracing the apostolic faith it takes to believe the supernatural realities behind this, AND the obedience to faith required so that you SHOW you really believe.
brk:
“Confecting” the Lord’s Supper is an unbiblical invention of man. Jesus blessing the bread in thanksgiving to God is not “confecting” the bread.
Click to expand...
I chose the wrong word. My bad.

Jesus
  • changed bread and wine into His body and blood.
  • instituted the ministerial priesthood at this supper before He died…
  • ONLY a valid ministerial priesthood can do this
    When He instructed and ordained His apostles "DO this in memory of me"
ποιέω poieō DO

1) to makea) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.b) to be the authors of, the causec) to make ready, to prepared) to produce, bear, shoot forthe) to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s selff) to make a thing out of somethingg) to (make i.e.) render one anything
1) to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that2) to (make i.e.) declare one anything

​
h) to put one forth, to lead him outi) to make one do something
1) cause one to

​
j) to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about)

2) to doa) to act rightly, do well
1) to carry out, to execute

​
b) to do a thing unto one
1) to do to one

​
c) with designation of time: to pass, spendd) to celebrate, keep
1) to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover

​
e) to perform: to a promise
 
CWBetts said:
The only time I don’t take both is when i’m sick, actually. I dont want the rest of the parish to get sick just from taking Communion
Click to expand...
The wine and the silver take care of germs.
 
CWBetts said:
but the infallible teachings of the Church tell us that the Holy Eucharist contains the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ
Click to expand...
CW,
Contains? Or is? I never try to tell others what they believe, but wouldn’t it be more Catholic to say the Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ? Just a question, really.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
CW,
Contains? Or is? I never try to tell others what they believe, but wouldn’t it be more Catholic to say the Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ? Just a question, really.

Jon
Click to expand...
You are right. That is actually what I meant. Roman Catholicism …well lets just say that there is a learning curve;)
 
TomaszA said:
Hisalone,

Take a look at these quotes. They indicate the metaphorical usage of the term “eat flesh” and “drink blood” mean to persecute, to destroy:

"I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh;
they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine.
Then all mankind will know
that I, the LORD, am your Savior,
your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."
Isaiah 49:26

"On the right they will devour,
but still be hungry;
on the left they will eat,
but not be satisfied.
Each will feed on the flesh of his own offspring
Isaiah 9:20

"When evil men advance against me
to devour my flesh,
when my enemies and my foes attack me,
they will stumble and fall.
Psalm 27:2
Click to expand...
this is what I love about message boards 😦

You can completely ignore my scriptures so you can post yours.

All of Gods word is truth, Meaning you cant pick and choose.
 
Reuben_J said:
I like that. If Jesus says it’s real, it’s sure is. 🙂

Did not Jesus says," Amen, Amen, I say to you … " for emphasis? There is certainly no doubt that verse meant to be taken literally.

The only point left for contention is whether this saying is for the disciples only at that moment and should not be translated to the present day Holy Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Real food and drink to our spirits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top