How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[mikeledes]

And I’m also certain, Radical, that the disciples didn’t understand the Trinity in terms of “person”, “nature”," “subtance,” etc. They did not need to have a thorough theological understanding of transubstantiation to accept that Jesus was speaking of literal flesh and blood. And, like I said, even if they didn’t fully understand, that still does not take away from the fact that Jesus was speaking literally and not figuratively.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[shawn38]

That doesn’t contradict what I’ve stated before regarding the use the words “spirit” and “flesh” in Scripture. Spiritual is not “symbolic.” It simply means that which is of God or revealed by God. Receiving Christ in the Eucharist is not the same thing as eating earthly food and water. We are receiving the God-Man, the glorified Christ. So consuming the Body and Blood of Christ is not the same thing as consuming the body and blood of merely earthly creatures. Consequently, that law does not apply to the reception of the glorified Christ in the Eucharist. Moreover, God knows what He intended by the law. as the sovereign Lawgiver, and hence can always reveal exceptions to that law.

God Bless,
Michael

Where was Christ teaching and to whom explains the analogies.

Where? Jn 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
His Audience? Disciples that apparently some were scribes and pharisees for they were familiar with authority and questioning Christ’s authority.
Why does Christ compare Himself to bred? The Jews were quite familiar with the 40 years in the desert for which they ate manna, bread from heaven. The bread and water given to the Jews in the desert was to humble them spiritually and sustain them physically through God’s miracles. Just of the Jews physically consumed the bread and water to sustain themselves physically, Christ is telling them that they are to consume the word of truth, the mystery of God. Now Christ comparing calling Himself the true bread was blasphemy to the scribes and pharisees. Christ knows that some do not and will not believe Him even if they were to see the Son of man ascend up where He was before.

Jn 6:53…Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Jn 6:63…the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Put it together and you realize that Christ was not speaking of eating His physical body or even glorified body, but the word of God.

 

[Radical]

mikeledes:

Hello Radical. I’ll answer your response in parts. First of all, there is no inconsistency. There is a consumption of Christ in the Eucharist. But what I meant was that the Eucharist is not exactly the same as mere earthly food. Earthly food is for the nourishment of our bodies, while the Eucharist is for the nourishment of our souls.

Yes, it is a consumption…a sort of consumption that is entirely different from every other consumption of flesh. It is done w/o teeth actually touching flesh…by eating a wafer an entire physical body is supposed to have been consumed (and not just its flesh, but hair, bone, and bile too). Absolutely unlike anything (else) known to man.

The problem is this. If “flesh and blood” are really metaphors, then Jesus or the evangelist would have explained what those metaphors meant.

and if the “gnawing of flesh” was to be done in fashion that wasn’t even known to be possible at that time, then Jesus or the author would have explained that absolutely novel manner of eating to the audience.

That is the consistent pattern we see in the Gospel of John. If with other far less controversial statements Jesus or John provided an explanation, then why didn’t they provide one here, the only instance where disciples walked away because of something Jesus said?

And the departure of some disciples is a thing that both Jesus and the author take pains to address. They also assured their respective audiences that everything went according to plan.

Several times Jesus talks about His passion, death, and resurrection… all of which are literal realities… and they didn’t understand. The point is that it doesn’t matter whether the disciples understood that he was speaking of a “transubstantial” presence or not.

It does matter if you want to rely on an “Jesus always explained what he meant when his disciples didn’t understand” argument. The fact is, he didn’t explain a transubstantial consumption…if they took his words literally, they could have only conceived of a cannibalistic consumption…they would have understood that he was requiring them to sin

The fact that they didn’t fully understand does not mean He’s not speaking of a substantial presence in the Eucharist, just as the fact that the apostle’s failure to fully comprehend His statements regarding His literal death and resurrection does not mean that these were not literal events. Jesus gave them the essence of what transubstantiation means. They accepted what Jesus taught because they believed He came from the Father, not necessarily because they fully understood or liked what He said. But if He were using figurative language, then Jesus or the evangelist would have explained what that language meant…

This is merely your convenient assumption …another assumption would be that if He was requiring a transubstantial consumption, then Jesus or the author would have explained that the grossly sinful act of cannibalism wasn’t required.

…and I cited many examples where they do explain figurative language, especially when it causes controversy. ** And I could cite example after example of where figurative language is not explained such as “I am the vine” etc. In John 6, however, both Jesus and the author go on to explain why there was no need for an explanation at that time b/c none can come to Christ unless drawn by the Father. Christ would never drive away anyone who came to him. Christ knew who would and who wouldn’t believe and he knew that those who wouldn’t believe would leave. (vs. 37-40, 44, 61-65)…and at the end of the passage the “belief” in question is affirmed to be belief that Jesus was the Holy One of God. (v. 69)

When there is no explanation, that means that there is no need for one. The plain words speak for themselves.

and the plain words of “unless you gnaw on my flesh…you have no life” in no way speak of the type of consumption that you believe occurs at your Eucharist. Ask any 10 year old that hasn’t been influenced by any perspective wrt the Lord’s Supper. Let him watch you participate in the Lord’s Supper and then ask him to describe in plain words what was eaten. He’ll tell you every time that a wafer was literally eaten. If you try to convince that 10 year old that an entire human body was actually the thing consumed, you surely won’t be letting any plain words speak for themselves.

And I’m also certain, Radical, that the disciples didn’t understand the Trinity in terms of “person”, “nature”," “subtance,” etc. They did not need to have a thorough theological understanding of transubstantiation to accept that Jesus was speaking of literal flesh and blood.

well, they would have had to understand that something like transubstantiation was even possible in order to grasp that Jesus wasn’t requiring cannibalism…(or I guess they could have realized that Jesus was speaking figuratively, but using rather difficult and vulgar words to do so)…as to “literal flesh and blood,” to say that Jesus’s body is “literally” eaten at the Eucharist is to render the term meaningless (IMHO).

And, like I said, even if they didn’t fully understand, that still does not take away from the fact that Jesus was speaking literally and not figuratively.

…or, even if they didn’t fully understand what he meant by the figure, that still does not take away from the fact that Jesus was speaking figuratively and not literally.

To make your argument you employ a double standard. You insist that if Christ was using a figure, then he would have explained what that figure meant. In contrast, you will state that Christ was talking about an unknown manner of consumption, w/o insisting that Christ would have explained that mode of eating that avoided a gross sin.

Peace

 

[mikeledes]

And I could cite example after example of where figurative language is not explained such as “I am the vine” etc. In John 6, however, both Jesus and the author go on to explain why there was no need for an explanation at that time b/c none can come to Christ unless drawn by the Father. Christ would never drive away anyone who came to him. Christ knew who would and who wouldn’t believe and he knew that those who wouldn’t believe would leave. (vs. 37-40, 44, 61-65)…and at the end of the passage the “belief” in question is affirmed to be belief that Jesus was the Holy One of God. (v. 69)

It’s late and I have to go. But before I go, I want to address your objections here. Jesus did not have to explain “I am the vine” because it was understood He was speaking figuratively. He is using a parable in which He identfies Himself with the vine and the Father as the vinekeeper. So from the very beginning it is understood Jesus is using a metaphor and that’s why there are no questions or challenges. Second of all, Jesus provides explanations of what He said… particularly if there was a controversy… whether the audience consisted of believers and/or unbelievers. And the examples I cited demonstrate that. Third, when John explains it is obviously for the benefit of the one reading his gospel. So whether the audience believed or not, it does not change the fact that Jesus’s and John’s modus operandi is to explain or clarify statements that were ambiguous or caused controversy. Neither one of them do that here.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Jn 6:53…Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Jn 6:63…the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Put it together and you realize that Christ was not speaking of eating His physical body or even glorified body, but the word of God.

His words are spirit not because they are figurative, but because they are of God! Let’s go back to John 3:6 where Jesus says…** and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit**. So when Jesus says that that which is born of Spirit is spirit, is He saying that the born again person ceases to have a physical body, ceases to be a real person? No! What it means is that that person has now become a spiritual person, but a real person nonetheless. Christ’s words are spirit because they are spiritual and they are spiritual because they are of God. You are equating “spiritual” or “spirit” with metaphor.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

and the plain words of “unless you gnaw on my flesh…you have no life” in no way speak of the type of consumption that you believe occurs at your Eucharist. Ask any 10 year old that hasn’t been influenced by any perspective wrt the Lord’s Supper. Let him watch you participate in the Lord’s Supper and then ask him to describe in plain words what was eaten. He’ll tell you every time that a wafer was literally eaten. If you try to convince that 10 year old that an entire human body was actually the thing consumed, you surely won’t be letting any plain words speak for themselves.

And if any 10 year old had seen the baby Jesus in the manger, he or she would never have told you that He was God. That veiled by His visible human nature was an invisible divine nature. That requires the eyes of faith and the same goes for the Eucharist. Moreover, children generally think in concrete terms so I don’t think that example applies.

well, they would have had to understand that something like transubstantiation was even possible in order to grasp that Jesus wasn’t requiring cannibalism…(or I guess they could have realized that Jesus was speaking figuratively, but using rather difficult and vulgar words to do so)…as to “literal flesh and blood,” to say that Jesus’s body is “literally” eaten at the Eucharist is to render the term meaningless (IMHO).
…or, even if they didn’t fully understand what he meant by the figure, that still does not take away from the fact that Jesus was speaking figuratively and not literally.

To make your argument you employ a double standard. You insist that if Christ was using a figure, then he would have explained what that figure meant. In contrast, you will state that Christ was talking about an unknown manner of consumption, w/o insisting that Christ would have explained that mode of eating that avoided a gross sin.

Peace

Where in the Bible does Jesus or any of the Apostles explain the Trinity? How is it that Jesus and the Father are distinct persons and yet there is only one God? The Bible simply tells us that Jesus is God and strongly implies that the Holy Spirit is God, but it doesn’t explain how that is reconciled with the common understanding of the number one. The Bible gives us the essence of the doctrine of the Trinity, but does not give the fine theological explanations used by Christians today (i.e. persons, substance, eternal generation, procession, etc.) Jesus gave them the essence of transubstantiation. They may not have understood… just as they did not understand when He talked to them about His literal death and resurrection. He did not have to give a detailed theological explanation. At that point, He simply gave them what was most essential regarding the Eucharist, namely, that we truly receive His Body and His Blood.

1 Corinthians 10:16

16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[brkn1]

I have never denied that Jesus was not human. That’s an interpretation you are imposing on what I said. A glorified body, brkn, does not cease being human. Jesus continues to be the God-Man, continues having a human nature, even after the Resurrection. And when we are resurrected, we also will continue being humans. Glorified humans, but humans nonetheless. And you objection based on our understanding of the Mass is based on a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Mass is. But that’s the subject of another thread.

God Bless,
Michael

In post # 131, you said, “consuming the literal Body and Blood of Christ is not the same thing as consuming the body and blood of merely earthly creatures.”
This statement clearly denies Christ’s body as also being human as our bodies are.

You want to use a “glorified body” to get around the obvious violation of the Law that Scripture says about such eating and drinking, but if Christ’s body is still human in any way as you also claim, then the Law is broken. There are no exceptions described in the Law and God is consistent in all that He does or requires.

 

[shawn38]

Are you saying the Eucharist is symbolic? Show me the early church writings where they believed the Eucharist was only symbolic?

The Bible is full of symbolism and this is no different.

1 Cor 11:24-25 and it tells us what it represents.

24 …this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Symbolic for Christ’s body while calling to memory Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and why we are to do it.

25 This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Symbolic of the New Testament covenant made that only went into effect after the shedding of blood. This too we are to do in remembering.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

Are they literally showing the Lord’s death? No, but they’re recalling what Christ did through the bread and wine.

Read the earlier verses in 1 Cor 11 and recall how the so called Christians were acting like anything but Christians. The early Christians were gathered to celebrate the Lord’s supper, but Paul rebuked the division within the church and their behavior:

1 Cor 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

Paul then goes on to explain the manner for which the Lord’s supper should be performed.

 

[shawn38]

His words are spirit not because they are figurative, but because they are of God!

Christ’s words are Spirit because they are the truth (Jn 14:17, Jn 15:26, Jn 16:13) for the Spirit is Truth (1 Jn 5:6) which leads to eternal life.

Let’s go back to John 3:6 where Jesus says…** and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit**. So when Jesus says that that which is born of Spirit is spirit, is He saying that the born again person ceases to have a physical body, ceases to be a real person? No! What it means is that that person has now become a spiritual person, but a real person nonetheless.

Agreed. Christ is comparing the sinful nature of the unsaved flesh to a new creation for this regeneration is necessary to see the kingdom of heaven.

But why does Christ say that the Spirit is spirit? We know why!

1 Ptr 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed (flesh), but of imperishable (Spirit), through the living and enduring word of God.

1 Cor 2:13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body…and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Eph 4:4There is one body and one Spirit Eph 5:30 for we are members of his body. 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

 

[shawn38]

His words are spirit not because they are figurative, but because they are of God! …You are equating “spiritual” or “spirit” with metaphor.

Eph 5:25…just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,

1 Cor 2:13 we speak…in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

1 Cor 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body…and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

The one Spirit we are given to drink is the truth. What was the life giving water spoken of by Jesus to the Samaritan woman? It was the spirit of the truth which leads to everlasting life.

Matt 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” 4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

So “Man…lives…on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

 

[lil_flower_luv]

So “Man…lives…on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

Haven’t you protestants learned you cannot use Bible verses to prove a point to Catholics? We know the Bible too. That’s one of the reasons we are Catholic.

The Eucharist is the only way I can see Christ truly and physically present among us on earth. It just doesn’t make any sense any other way. One day you will see…and rejoice with us in His Most Blessed Sacrament.

 

[zz912]

In post # 131, you said, “consuming the literal Body and Blood of Christ is not the same thing as consuming the body and blood of merely earthly creatures.”
This statement clearly denies Christ’s body as also being human as our bodies are.

You want to use a “glorified body” to get around the obvious violation of the Law that Scripture says about such eating and drinking, but if Christ’s body is still human in any way as you also claim, then the Law is broken. There are no exceptions described in the Law and God is consistent in all that He does or requires.

I don’t think you’ve thought this one through. Why don’t you explain to me how Christ walks and talks among the disciples after His resurrection, but does not bleed from the holes in His hands, feet, and side? Thomas put his finger into the holes on His hands and side. Was Jesus bleeding profusely all this time? Or did He now have a glorified body that no longer bled? You need to explain this massive fallacy in your non-scriptural argument.

 

[mikeledes]

In post # 131, you said, “consuming the literal Body and Blood of Christ is not the same thing as consuming the body and blood of merely earthly creatures.”
This statement clearly denies Christ’s body as also being human as our bodies are.

You want to use a “glorified body” to get around the obvious violation of the Law that Scripture says about such eating and drinking, but if Christ’s body is still human in any way as you also claim, then the Law is broken. There are no exceptions described in the Law and God is consistent in all that He does or requires.

I have two questions for you:

1. Does Christ still have His human nature after His resurrection and Ascension?
2. When the Christian is resurrected and glorified, does he or she cease to be human?

Second of all, I am not trying to get around an obvious violation of the Law. The fact that there are exceptions does not mean God is inconsistent. I provided one example from the Old Testament in which God prohibits a man to marry his brother’s wife and describes it as abhorrent and then in Leviticus God reveals an exception to that law in Deuteronomy. That is in Scripture for everyone to read. Do you believe God was being inconsistent there as well? If God prohibits something and then commands you to so something that apparently contradicts His Law, we know that God cannot contradict Himself and hence it is our interpretation of the Law that’s wrong. Hence, if God prohibits the eating of blood and then Christ commands you to eat His body and drink His blood, then it is understood that the Eucharist is a revealed exception to that law, just as the levirate marriage was a revealed exception to the prohibition in Leviticus against a man marrying his brother’s wife.

And I have another question:

Are Christians still bound by that law?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The Bible is full of symbolism and this is no different.

1 Cor 11:24-25 and it tells us what it represents.

24 …this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Symbolic for Christ’s body while calling to memory Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and why we are to do it.

25 This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Symbolic of the New Testament covenant made that only went into effect after the shedding of blood. This too we are to do in remembering.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

Are they literally showing the Lord’s death? No, but they’re recalling what Christ did through the bread and wine.

Read the earlier verses in 1 Cor 11 and recall how the so called Christians were acting like anything but Christians. The early Christians were gathered to celebrate the Lord’s supper, but Paul rebuked the division within the church and their behavior:

1 Cor 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

Paul then goes on to explain the manner for which the Lord’s supper should be performed.

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2621

We remember… an not in a sterile way… what Christ did for us. But that does not mean that while we remember His passion and death, Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist. When we receive the Body and Blood of Christ, we remember what Christ did for us and how we continue to benefit from that.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Eph 5:25…just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,

1 Cor 2:13 we speak…in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

1 Cor 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body…and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

The one Spirit we are given to drink is the truth. What was the life giving water spoken of by Jesus to the Samaritan woman? It was the spirit of the truth which leads to everlasting life.

Matt 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” 4Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

So “Man…lives…on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

Okay… and what does it mean that we lives on every word that comes from the mouth of God? What does the word of God consist of? It consists a body of doctrine or teachings given to us by God. Therefore, the “word”, for example includes the real and literal death and resurrection of Christ, the real and literal resurrection of the dead, the command to love, etc. Jesus states:

John 8:51

51I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

To keep His word means to obey His word. James 1:22-23

But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;

Romans 6:17-18

17But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,
18and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Acts 5:32

**32"And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him." **

We are a doer of the word when we obey His word. And His word encompasses all of the truths He has revealed to us and His word is spiritual,as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 2:13, because it does not have its origin in man or human wisdom, but in God. Therefore, when Christ says that the words that He spoke are spirit and life, He is saying that the truth that He just revealed… the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood…is the word of God (Spirit) and not man (flesh) and hence we are to obey His teaching, for a person cannot receive life if they refuse to subject to themeselves to the Word of God. Those that left refused to accept and obey His words or teaching regarding the Eucharist. Everything God has revealed are spiritual truths, such as the literal and corporeal death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and also His Real Presence in the Eucharist. Spiritual words and truths are words and truths that come forth from God and which man ought to obey, which the Jews and the disciples that left refused to do.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2621

We remember… an not in a sterile way… what Christ did for us. But that does not mean that while we remember His passion and death, Christ is not substantially present in the Eucharist. When we receive the Body and Blood of Christ, we remember what Christ did for us and how we continue to benefit from that.

God Bless,
Michael

I forgot to add that the above link is from a Lutheran website… since Martin Luther and hence Lutherans believe in the Real Presence of Christ. I like their explanation of “Do this in Rememberance of Me.”

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Radical]

It’s late and I have to go.

hope you slept well

Second of all, Jesus provides explanations of what He said… particularly if there was a controversy… whether the audience consisted of believers and/or unbelievers. And the examples I cited demonstrate that.

No, that is not always the case. Regarding the “raise the temple in 3 days claim” Jesus never explained his meaning. The Gospel’s author explained that the disciples understood it after the fact, but Jesus never explained. So we are left with the Gospel’s author never explaining the actual meaning (whether it was meant figuratively, which seems obvious given that no one ever gnaws on his flesh, or whether it was meant transubstantially)

Third, when John explains it is obviously for the benefit of the one reading his gospel. So whether the audience believed or not, it does not change the fact that Jesus’s and John’s modus operandi is to explain or clarify statements that were ambiguous or caused controversy. Neither one of them do that here.

and this is where you employ that double standard. For some reason you think that it is impossible that neither one of them would have explained the figure, but you are very prepared to allow that neither one of them would have explained the this new mode of eating (which is entirely unique and absolutely unfathomable)

And if any 10 year old had seen the baby Jesus in the manger, he or she would never have told you that He was God. That veiled by His visible human nature was an invisible divine nature.

A bit different I think. Nobody is claiming that the body of an infant isn’t actually present but only appears to our senses to be present. Further, one would expect a divine nature to be non-physical as opposed to a body, which is a physical thing.

Moreover, children generally think in concrete terms so I don’t think that example applies.

Well the ancient audience would have thought in physical terms and/or in spiritual terms, but not in transubstantial terms. You want to say that the words of John 6 should hold their plain meaning, but a transubstantial meaning would be anything but the plain meaning.

He did not have to give a detailed theological explanation. At that point, He simply gave them what was most essential regarding the Eucharist, namely, that we truly receive His Body and His Blood.

again the inconsistency. On one hand you say that if Jesus was speaking figuratively, then he wouldn’t have allowed certain disciples to walk away confused. On the other hand you refuse to say that if Jesus was speaking transubstantially, then he wouldn’t have allowed certain disciples to walk away confused. The bottom line is that Jesus did not supply the “essential regarding the Eucharist’ such that those confused disciples could have possibly understood that he was talking about a “real” consumption of his flesh that did not amount to cannibalism. Many, many people are quite thrilled with a consumption via a real bodily presence. How many of those would be thrilled with a actual cannibalistic daily consumption of an entire human body? That difference shows the need for an explanation which you refuse to acknowledge.

1 Corinthians 10:16

16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

let’s look at more of that passage. It reads:

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a **sharing in the blood of Christ **? Is not the bread which we break a **sharing in the body of Christ **? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body ; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel ; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar ? 19 What do I mean then ? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything ? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God ; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons ; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Note how Paul continues and then applies the “sharing” to the altar where one eats one thing and then shares in another thing establishing that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, consumption of the thing one shares in is not required. Paul then states that one can become a “sharer” with demons establishing that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, a real bodily presence is not required.

God Bless you Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Here’s the Catholic Encyclopedia’s explanation of John 6:

Again, the murmuring of the Jews is the clearest evidence that they had understood the preceding words of Jesus literally (John 6:53). Yet far from repudiating this construction as a gross misunderstanding, Christ repeated them in a most solemn manner, in John (6:54 sqq.). In consequence, many of His Disciples were scandalized and said: “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” (John 6:61); but instead of retracting what He had said, Christ rather reproached them for their want of faith, by alluding to His sublimer origin and His future Ascension into heaven. And without further ado He allowed these Disciples to go their way (John 6:62 sqq.). Finally He turned to His twelve Apostles with the question: "Will you also go away?
Then Peter stepped forth and with humble faith replied: “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (John 6:68 sqq.). The entire scene of the discourse and murmurings against it proves that the Zwinglian and Anglican interpretation of the passage, “It is the spirit that quickeneth”, etc., in the sense of a glossing over or retractation, is wholly inadmissible. For in spite of these words the Disciples severed their connection with Jesus, while the Twelve accepted with simple faith a mystery which as yet they did not understand. Nor did Christ say: “My flesh is spirit”, i.e. to be understood in a figurative sense, but: “My words are spirit and life”. There are two views regarding the sense in which this text is to be interpreted. Many of the Fathers declare that the true Flesh of Jesus (sarx) is not to be understood as separated from His Divinity (spiritus), and hence not in a cannibalistic sense, but as belonging entirely to the supernatural economy. The second and more scientific explanation asserts that in the Scriptural opposition of “flesh and blood” to “spirit”, the former always signifies carnal-mindedness, the latter mental perception illumined by faith, so that it was the intention of Jesus in this passage to give prominence to the fact that the sublime mystery of the Eucharist can be grasped in the light of supernatural faith alone, whereas it cannot be understood by the carnal-minded, who are weighed down under the burden of sin.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

hope you slept well

Thank you.

No, that is not always the case. Regarding the “raise the temple in 3 days claim” Jesus never explained his meaning. The Gospel’s author explained that the disciples understood it after the fact, but Jesus never explained. So we are left with the Gospel’s author never explaining the actual meaning (whether it was meant figuratively, which seems obvious given that no one ever gnaws on his flesh, or whether it was meant transubstantially)

What is my argument regarding the Gospel of John? That there is always and explanation when something Jesus says sparks a question or* controversy*. That explanation is generally given by Jesus Himself and in a few occasions by the evagelist. But the point is that it does not go unexplained, either for the benefit of those who first heard the words or for the benefit of those reading the Gospel of John. In the case of “raise the temple in 3 days”, John explains what Jesus meant:

John 2:21

21But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

Secondly, the Eucharist, like regular food, is taken in the mouth and consumed. In other words, it is eaten. What distinguishes the Eucharist from other food is its nature and purpose, not the mode in which it is ingested. Considering the modus operandi we find in the Gospel of John regarding controversial statements, the fact that Jesus reafirms what He said after the reaction of the Jews and His disciples and that John does not comment on what He said indicate that the words speak for themselves, that we are to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ. That is is the essence of the doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. That when we receive Holy Communion, we receive the Body and Blood of Christ. The most essential thing for Jesus was to identify what or who we receive (the Body and Blood of Christ) in the Eucharist. That we eat His Body and drink His Blood. The fact that an exhaustive theological explanation is not given on how that’s possible does not take away fron the basic point, that we are to eat His body and drink His blood. John identified Jesus as God, for example, but does not provide an exhaustive theological explanation on how Jesus can be God and yet God be one, how Jesus can be God and Man, etc. John simply tells us who Jesus is and Jesus tells us who we receive in the Eucharist.

and this is where you employ that double standard. For some reason you think that it is impossible that neither one of them would have explained the figure, but you are very prepared to allow that neither one of them would have explained the this new mode of eating (which is entirely unique and absolutely unfathomable)

The mode of eating is not new…it is taken into the mouth and consumed. Transubstantiation refers to the nature of that which is taken into the mouth and consumed, not to the way it enters the body.

A bit different I think. Nobody is claiming that the body of an infant isn’t actually present but only appears to our senses to be present. Further, one would expect a divine nature to be non-physical as opposed to a body, which is a physical thing.

The point is that just because something is not perceptible to the eyes does not mean that it is not there. My eyes tells me that Jesus is human, but my eyes do not capture the fullness of the truth regarding Christ, that He is both God and Man. So just because a 10 year old can’t perceive the Body and Blood of Christ does not necessarily and automatically mean that there can’t be a Real Presence.

Continued in next post…

 

[mikeledes]

Well the ancient audience would have thought in physical terms and/or in spiritual terms, but not in transubstantial terms. You want to say that the words of John 6 should hold their plain meaning, but a transubstantial meaning would be anything but the plain meaning.

And the “physical” terms is essentially true and that is the essence of the Real Presence and transubstantiation. Transubstantiation simply explains how He is bodily present. Christ is objectively, really, and bodily present in the Eucharist. Again, Jesus in John gives us the what and not the how and it is the what that is most important. We literally receive the Body and Blood of Christ. That is the plain meaning of the text.

again the inconsistency. On one hand you say that if Jesus was speaking figuratively, then he wouldn’t have allowed certain disciples to walk away confused. On the other hand you refuse to say that if Jesus was speaking transubstantially, then he wouldn’t have allowed certain disciples to walk away confused. The bottom line is that Jesus did not supply the “essential regarding the Eucharist’ such that those confused disciples could have possibly understood that he was talking about a “real” consumption of his flesh that did not amount to cannibalism. Many, many people are quite thrilled with a consumption via a real bodily presence. How many of those would be thrilled with a actual cannibalistic daily consumption of an entire human body? That difference shows the need for an explanation which you refuse to acknowledge.

I never said that if Jesus were speaking figuratively he wouldn’t have allowed certain disciples to walk away confused. What I said was that when Jesus made a statement that sparked a question or controversy, He clarifies His statement. In other words, the focus of my arguement is on Jesus’s and John’s modus operandi when it came to controversial statements. There are examples in John, for example, where Jesus explains what He meant to people He knew did not believe. And considering the consistent pattern we see in the Gospel of John regarding ambiguous and especially controversial statements, the fact that Jesus reaffirmed His controversial statement after being challenged by the Jews demonstrates that He meant what He said, that He was not speaking figuratively. It is not about accepting something and submitting to it because you fully understand it or like it. It’s about accepting something and submitting to it because you believe in the One who has revealed it to you. I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist not because I fully understand it or “like it”, but because I believe that Jesus is the God-Man and what He says is the word of God and true and hence I obey His words.

let’s look at more of that passage. It reads:

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a **sharing in the blood of Christ **? Is not the bread which we break a **sharing in the body of Christ **? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body ; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel ; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar ? 19 What do I mean then ? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything ? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God ; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons ; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Note how Paul continues and then applies the “sharing” to the altar where one eats one thing and then shares in another thing establishing that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, consumption of the thing one shares in is not required. Paul then states that one can become a “sharer” with demons establishing that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, a real bodily presence is not required.

But note that Paul does not merely state that they are sharing in Christ or with Christ. The emphasis is on the bodily presence (body and blood). He says sharing in the body of Christ and sharing in his blood. In other words, in the Eucharist we partake of Christ’s body and blood.

God Bless you Michael

May God richly bless you too.

In Christ,
Michael