Is my understanding correct?

[PJM]

Dear friends in Christ:

Please read and explain were and if I have a incorrect understanding of Protestants and John Six:

Here friends is the ‘Rest of the Story:”

The Protestant position as I understand it is anchored on verse 63:”It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” [RSV]

Rebuttal:
This very passage is explained by Jesus as being a reference NOT to cardinal flesh; but His soon to be Glorified, Risen and Perfected Heavenly Body.

#1. Understood correctly Jesus Himself [who is Spirit and truth] Jn. 4:23-24. So He speaks of Himself; and His soon to be Glorified Body; Blood; Soul and Divinity.

#1. [41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” [42] They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’?” [Obviously thinking cardinal-body]

[43] Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. [44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; [48] I am the bread of life. [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [obtain Grace] [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” [Again cardinal body]

#2. Notice Jesus does not recant His Teaching: rather He explains it again.

[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man [who is GOD!] and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

#3. Admittedly the Apostles have a distinct advantage of understanding. Both from participation in the “Last Supper” where they were appointed “Priest” [Do this in memory of Me] and a three year education of life with the Son of God.

55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

#4. Christ could not be more clear or more specific.

[60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
#5. Jesus Lets them go having discerned there lack of Faith and understanding. [64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

#6. Jesus goes to tell them that they have a wrong and only human understanding. [65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

#7. Jesus then ask the Apostles: Do you wish to leave me too? No further explanation; only a challenge to there Faith and correct understanding. [67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”

And the response confirms Christ words as Literally True; and affirms a high degree of faith in His Spoken Word…. [68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; [69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

#8. This is immediately a Chief Dogma of Christ. Accepted, lived and Faithfully practiced and TAUGHT: Mt.26-28; Mk.14:22-24; Lk.22:19-21; John Six; Paul 1st. Cor. 11:22-29.…

#9. Ist. Cor. 11: “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 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.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Notice not [any] “bread” BUT “THE BREAD”, not [any] “wine” “BUT THE WINE”

#10. And take note of the final statement: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Meaning beings God’s judgment upon themselves.! IMPOSSIBLE IF THEY WWERE ONLY EATING BREAD AND WINE!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[ESMDHokie77]

sounds good to me

 

[JonNC]

=PJM;7724949]Dear friends in Christ:

Please read and explain were and if I have a incorrect understanding of Protestants and John Six:

Here friends is the ‘Rest of the Story:”

The Protestant position as I understand it is anchored on verse 63:”It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” [RSV]

It depends, Pat, on which "ptortestant " you are speaking of.

Rebuttal:
This very passage is explained by Jesus as being a reference NOT to cardinal flesh; but His soon to be Glorified, Risen and Perfected Heavenly Body.

#1. Understood correctly Jesus Himself [who is Spirit and truth] Jn. 4:23-24. So He speaks of Himself; and His soon to be Glorified Body; Blood; Soul and Divinity.

#1. [41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” [42] They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’?” [Obviously thinking cardinal-body]

[43] Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. [44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; [48] I am the bread of life. [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [obtain Grace] [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” [Again cardinal body]

#2. Notice Jesus does not recant His Teaching: rather He explains it again.

[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man [who is GOD!] and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

#3. Admittedly the Apostles have a distinct advantage of understanding. Both from participation in the “Last Supper” where they were appointed “Priest” [Do this in memory of Me] and a three year education of life with the Son of God.

55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

#4. Christ could not be more clear or more specific.

[60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
#5. Jesus Lets them go having discerned there lack of Faith and understanding. [64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

#6. Jesus goes to tell them that they have a wrong and only human understanding. [65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

#7. Jesus then ask the Apostles: Do you wish to leave me too? No further explanation; only a challenge to there Faith and correct understanding. [67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”

And the response confirms Christ words as Literally True; and affirms a high degree of faith in His Spoken Word…. [68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; [69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

#8. This is immediately a Chief Dogma of Christ. Accepted, lived and Faithfully practiced and TAUGHT: Mt.26-28; Mk.14:22-24; Lk.22:19-21; John Six; Paul 1st. Cor. 11:22-29.…

#9. Ist. Cor. 11: “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 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.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Notice not [any] “bread” BUT “THE BREAD”, not [any] “wine” “BUT THE WINE”

#10. And take note of the final statement: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Meaning beings God’s judgment upon themselves.! IMPOSSIBLE IF THEY WWERE ONLY EATING BREAD AND WINE!

While Lutherans are more inclined to support the RP from the Last Supper accounts you reference than by John 6, we generally would concur with what you say here.

God Bless,
Pat

His blessing also with you,
Jon

 

[cooterhein]

IMPOSSIBLE IF THEY WWERE ONLY EATING BREAD AND WINE!

It’s quite possible. It’s happened before, too.

 

[cooterhein]

The typology indicated by Jesus is one where He equates Himself with the manna from Heaven that fell from the sky while the children of Israel were in the wilderness. There were a variety of guidelines that they had to follow in order to properly handle this actual bread from heaven.

No one has ever suggested that the manna from heaven was transformed into Jesus or that it ever was Jesus. Nevertheless, people who disregarded the rules and regs did suffer consequences.

I think this has something to do with the notion that God can’t possibly pass judgment on people who mishandle a symbol if it’s just a symbol and not a transubstantiated thing that can and should be worshiped latria-style. Not when the very passage that’s being referenced is one where Jesus makes a connection between Himself and the manna that fell from heaven. Manna that came with a set of rules about how it should be handled. And rules that came with various types of punishment depending on how flagrant the offense was.

And the whole time this was happening…well, I have no actual proof of this, but I very much doubt anyone suggested that God was unjust in His judgment and punishment by reason of the manna being “just food” or “just a symbol.”

 

[Bill_Pick]

Dear friends in Christ:

Please read and explain were and if I have a incorrect understanding of Protestants and John Six:

Here friends is the ‘Rest of the Story:”

The Protestant position as I understand it is anchored on verse 63:”It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” [RSV]

Rebuttal:
This very passage is explained by Jesus as being a reference NOT to cardinal flesh; but His soon to be Glorified, Risen and Perfected Heavenly Body.

#1. Understood correctly Jesus Himself [who is Spirit and truth] Jn. 4:23-24. So He speaks of Himself; and His soon to be Glorified Body; Blood; Soul and Divinity.

#1. [41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” [42] They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’?” [Obviously thinking cardinal-body]

[43] Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. [44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; [48] I am the bread of life. [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [obtain Grace] [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” [Again cardinal body]

#2. Notice Jesus does not recant His Teaching: rather He explains it again.

[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man [who is GOD!] and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

#3. Admittedly the Apostles have a distinct advantage of understanding. Both from participation in the “Last Supper” where they were appointed “Priest” [Do this in memory of Me] and a three year education of life with the Son of God.

55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

#4. Christ could not be more clear or more specific.

[60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
#5. Jesus Lets them go having discerned there lack of Faith and understanding. [64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

#6. Jesus goes to tell them that they have a wrong and only human understanding. [65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

#7. Jesus then ask the Apostles: Do you wish to leave me too? No further explanation; only a challenge to there Faith and correct understanding. [67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”

And the response confirms Christ words as Literally True; and affirms a high degree of faith in His Spoken Word…. [68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; [69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

#8. This is immediately a Chief Dogma of Christ. Accepted, lived and Faithfully practiced and TAUGHT: Mt.26-28; Mk.14:22-24; Lk.22:19-21; John Six; Paul 1st. Cor. 11:22-29.…

#9. Ist. Cor. 11: “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 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.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Notice not [any] “bread” BUT “THE BREAD”, not [any] “wine” “BUT THE WINE”

#10. And take note of the final statement: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Meaning beings God’s judgment upon themselves.! IMPOSSIBLE IF THEY WWERE ONLY EATING BREAD AND WINE!

God Bless,
Pat

Pat, You ask a very GOOD question,But I,m a Cathloic and its a Questionf for the other side,God bless You and Yours

 

[jwright82]

I don’t see from your argument why his words must be understood “literally”? He used parables and metaphorical language all the time. Is his body really bread? Literally that is where your argument leads, no where do we see him teaching that the bread in its substance turns into his flesh at the words of institution. So he must be made of bread and flesh at the same time and in the same relationship since he “literally” refers to himself as bread, but that is a contradiction. We must be careful when applying the common understanding of the word “literal”, the word simply means to interpret it the way the author intended it to mean (whether metaphorical or not).

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Perhaps… on the literal stand, I might lend this:
According to Scott Hahn, who I saw at a presentation 2 weeks ago… (paraphrased of course)

John 6 uses the word “eat” a lot. The English word comes from 2 different verbs from the Greek. Jesus initially uses a verb that could be figurative, but once he is questioned he begins to use a verb that is quite literal… it could be gnaw or chew.

sounds literal to me.

 

[JonNC]

=jwright82;7729103]I don’t see from your argument why his words must be understood “literally”? He used parables and metaphorical language all the time. **Is his body really bread? **Literally that is where your argument leads, no where do we see him teaching that the bread in its substance turns into his flesh at the words of institution. So he must be made of bread and flesh at the same time and in the same relationship since he “literally” refers to himself as bread, but that is a contradiction. We must be careful when applying the common understanding of the word “literal”, the word simply means to interpret it the way the author intended it to mean (whether metaphorical or not).

Is His body really bread? No, that would metaphorical, like I am the door, etc.
Besides, that isn’t what He said. What He said was “this (bread) is my body”.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

I don't see from your argument why his words must be understood "literally"? He used parables and metaphorical language all the time.

They are only taken this way among those who have received the One Faith of the Apostles.

Most modern American Evangelicals have jettisoned this, along with other doctrines of the faith, and replaced them with new doctrines that seem more suitable to them.

Is his body really bread? Literally that is where your argument leads, no where do we see him teaching that the bread in its substance turns into his flesh at the words of institution.

Well, we read it differnently, dont’ we?

The disciples of the Apostles also understood it differently than you.

Do you think Jesus gave his “symbolic” flesh and blood on the cross? He said he was giving His flesh and blood for the life of the world. Maybe it was only a “sign” or an “ordinance”?

So he must be made of bread and flesh at the same time and in the same relationship since he "literally" refers to himself as bread, but that is a contradiction.

No, jw, it is MYSTERY! The fact that it is beyond our human comprehension does not equate to contradiction. Jesus said it, therefore, it is not a contradiction, but an eternal Truth.

We must be careful when applying the common understanding of the word “literal”, the word simply means to interpret it the way the author intended it to mean (whether metaphorical or not).

The Apostles and their successors interpreted it to mean that Jesus substantially placed His Real Presence into the elements of bread and wine, and gave it to them as spiritual food.

 

[Radical]

Dear friends in Christ:

Please read and explain were and if I have a incorrect understanding of Protestants and John Six:

OK

The Protestant position as I understand it is anchored on verse 63:”It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” [RSV]

no, I wouldn’t say that my view is anchored on that verse at all…my view starts with the OT prohibition against drinking blood and cannibalism…it continues to build upon Christ’s designation of "his food’ as doing the will of the Father (J4:34) and his repeated emphasis on coming to him and believing in him as the means of salvation. Leave out verse 63 and my view remains unaltered.

This very passage is explained by Jesus as being a reference NOT to cardinal flesh; but His soon to be Glorified, Risen and Perfected Heavenly Body.

cardinal flesh? we agree on that first part, it wasn’t a reference to a bird’s flesh…WRT it being a reference to his “soon to be Glorified, Risen and Perfected Heavenly Body”, it sure seems like you are forcing a meaning onto the text. Look again at a couple of the verses that you provided:
[41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” [42] They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’?”
Christ declares that he is the bread of life there (at that place) and then (at that time)…and not that he will become food at some time in the future after he acquires a “Glorified, Risen and Perfected Heavenly Body”. On that day, he was the bread which came (already happened) down from heaven.

[43] Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. [44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; [48] I am the bread of life. [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Notice Jesus does not recant His Teaching: rather He explains it again.

why would he have recanted?..he didn’t get it wrong the first time. You interpretation of verses 43-52 demonstrate an inconsistency:

a) Christ said that he is the bread that came down from heaven…but you don’t think that he is actually bread with only the “accidents” of a human body
b) Christ said that the bread he shall give is his flesh…but you do think that the Eucharistic bread is actually his flesh with only the “accidents” of a loaf (er…bunch of wafers?)
With such an inconsistency, any resulting interpretation is highly suspect

Admittedly the Apostles have a distinct advantage of understanding. Both from participation in the “Last Supper” where they were appointed “Priest” [Do this in memory of Me] and a three year education of life with the Son of God.

true, but there is no indication that they understood that some manner of eating flesh (involving transubstantiated bread) was involved…the understanding that is announced by Peter is that “We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God”…as opposed to “We believe that you shall give us your Glorified, Risen and Perfected Heavenly flesh to eat in a miraculous manner.” …quite a difference!
55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

#4. Christ could not be more clear or more specific.

…and earlier in John at chapter 4 he couldn’t have been more clear when he said that, “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.” It would seem that real food (according to Christ) is doing the will of the Father…with the sacrifice of his flesh providing the perfect example (and providing a finished work). In that chapter he also said:
Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”…Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
It would seem that one could also drink this water and obtain eternal life…no mention of a need to eat his flesh or drink his blood.

#7. Jesus then ask the Apostles: Do you wish to leave me too? No further explanation; only a challenge to there Faith and correct understanding. [67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”

And the response confirms Christ words as Literally True; and affirms a high degree of faith in His Spoken Word…. [68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; [69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

there is no confirmation that Christ’s words are literally true…your biased mindset is showing

 

[Radical]

This is immediately a Chief Dogma of Christ. Accepted, lived and Faithfully practiced and TAUGHT: Mt.26-28; Mk.14:22-24; Lk.22:19-21; John Six; Paul 1st. Cor. 11:22-29.…

again this is only your understanding of those passages

#9. Ist. Cor. 11: “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 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.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Notice not [any] “bread” BUT “THE BREAD”, not [any] “wine” “BUT THE WINE”

of course the translators have used “the”…b/c it is the bread and the cup used at the Lord’s supper that is under consideration and not just any loaf of bread or any cup of wine.

#10. And take note of the final statement: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Meaning beings God’s judgment upon themselves.! IMPOSSIBLE IF THEY WWERE ONLY EATING BREAD AND WINE!

here, IMHO, you jump to an unwarranted conclusion. In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, … How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.

a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper

b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.

c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RP.

d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 appears to be the more significant and so “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him” would appear to be more significant than " profaning the body and blood of the Lord".

e) An assumption that a RP must be involved (at 1 Cor 11) b/c the offense is described in such a serious manner fails b/c Hebrews 10 describes a more serious offense against the body (what else would one trample) and against the blood of Christ w/o a RP being involved

may God Bless you Pat

 

[guanophore]

 You interpretation of verses 43-52 demonstrate an inconsistency:

a) Christ said that he is the bread that came down from heaven…but you don’t think that he is actually bread with only the “accidents” of a human body
b) Christ said that the bread he shall give is his flesh…but you do think that the Eucharistic bread is actually his flesh with only the “accidents” of a loaf (er…bunch of wafers?)
With such an inconsistency, any resulting interpretation is highly suspect

55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

It would seem that one could also drink this water and obtain eternal life…no mention of a need to eat his flesh or drink his blood.

The verses are not separated from one another, as you present. 'well it doesnt mention THAT in THIS verse". You are setting up false dichotomies, as both statements are true at the same time.

there is no confirmation that Christ's words are literally true...your biased mindset is showing

Our confirmation is found in Christ Himself, who gives us His body and blood, and though the witness of all who came before us.

“That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.’ For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’”

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

About this passage, J.N. D. Kelly states:
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).

The Catholic belief was that held by the early church fathers, that is our “mindset”.

 

[guanophore]

again this is only your understanding of those passages

no, Radical, it is not. It is the understanding of the Apostles, their successors, and all members of His One church up until today. I just posted some quotes from the Fathers on the Eucharist. Luther also still held this opinon, and was scandalized when the Reformers fell into heresy with regard to it.

here, IMHO, you jump to an unwarranted conclusion. In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, … How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.

a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper

No, Radical, that is not what it says. You are reading into the passage. It says that the Son of God is trampled underfoot, and that the apostate treats the blood that sanctified him as unholy. This has to do with the covenant sealed in His blood.

Besides that, the person referred to here is a communicant, and his actions have betrayed that covenant. This is why apostates were no longer admitted to the Eucharist.

b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.

No one is claiming any such thing, Radical. Catholics will be be the first to agree that there are an unlimited number of ways that we can crucify the Son of God afresh.

You are avoiding the Corinthians passage, aren’t you? Trying to make it mean something else?

c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RP.

No doubt. That does not invalidate what the Apostles taught about the Eucharist. If the Jesus is not Real in the elements, then it is not possible to profane him by eating and drinking in an unworthy manner. The fact that other ways also exist is irrelevant. In that passage, Paul is talking about people who have gotten sick and died for receiving in an unworthy manner.

d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 appears to be the more significant and so "trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" would appear to be more significant than " profaning the body and blood of the Lord".

Yes. Hebrews is talking about final apostasy. Those addressed in Corinth are being called to repentance. If they repent, they will not suffer the fate spoken about in Hebrews.

e) An assumption that a RP must be involved (at 1 Cor 11) b/c the offense is described in such a serious manner fails b/c Hebrews 10 describes a more serious offense against the body (what else would one trample) and against the blood of Christ w/o a RP being involved

If the folks in Corinth do not change their ways, indeed they will suffer the more serious penalty written about in Hebrews.

I look forward to how you will explain away the writings of the early fathers.

 

[Radical]

The verses are not separated from one another, as you present. 'well it doesnt mention THAT in THIS verse". You are setting up false dichotomies, as both statements are true at the same time.

huh?..the verses in question are re: bread 32-33, 35, 41, 48-51 and 58. re: flesh 51, 53- 56 The verses are in the same passage (not separated) and what you have emphasized is that your approach is so inconsistent that you don’t even treat verses in the same passage in the same way

Our confirmation is found in Christ Himself, who gives us His body and blood, and though the witness of all who came before us.

all? we have been through this before…

First, as late as the start of the 5th century we find that Augustine of Hippo did not hold to a real bodily presence. The understanding that Augustine did not advocate a real bodily presence (RBP) is derived from the body of his work. It is not an unusual conclusion of biographers of Augustine.

F. van der Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, wrote:

It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.

In Papal Sin G. Wills (another biographer of Augustine) approvingly cites van der Meer on that point and continues by pointing out that Berrouard thought he could establish that one text in Augustine affirmed a real presence. Wills noted that Kilmartin demonstrated how filmsy Berrouard’s case was.

Edward Kilmartin S.J. is a scholar who viewed the Antiochene school as a main source of the somatic real presence (influencing both Ambrose and Hillary). He contrasted this with Augustine, whose “Neoplatonic theology prevented him from interpreting the sacraments as more than signs pointing to a spiritual reality.”

Ignatius of Antioch…

…and we have been through this too. Ignatius uses extremely dramatic language such that you can’t be certain that he is speaking literally. For example:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

You should note that Ignatius says Christ’s blood = incorruptible love. Not exactly literal…which isn’t unusual at all. Ignatius tends to stray from the literal which is why you can’t be sure that when he said that the “Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” that he was talking about a Real Somatic Presence. At that point he is talking about the Docetists. When Ignatius states that the Eucharist is the flesh, he could mean that the Eucharist is the flesh a)literally, b)symbolically, c)sacramentally, d)representatively, or e)mysteriously etc. The Docetists seemed to deny that Christ came in the flesh. As such, they would not confess that the Eucharist was literally the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. Likewise, they would not confess that the Eucharist was symbolically the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. In fact, they would not confess that the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ in any way, shape or form b/c (they believed that) no such flesh existed. Here is an article that goes into detail as to why you shouldn’t assume that Ignatius was speaking literally

it is a possibility at best

Irenaeus…

here are two other quotes from Irenaeus:

*For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. *(fragmant 13)

*Then, again, how can they [the Gnostics] say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the eucharist, and the eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.” *(1st apology 64)

Note, how in the first passage Irenaeus indicated that the slaves imagined that it (the Christians’ divine communion) was actually flesh and blood…meaning that it wasn’t really flesh and blood. Also note how in the second passage, Irenaeus understood that the bread remained bread (retained its earthly reality) …and b/c it now also possessed a heavenly reality, although it was still bread, it was no longer merely common bread…hardly an affirmation of your view.

Sorry…my time is up …hope to continue tomorrow

 

[MartinJordan]

Is His body really bread? No, that would metaphorical, like I am the door, etc.
Besides, that isn’t what He said. What He said was “this (bread) is my body”.

Jon

Jon, would it be wrong for me to say this:

He said “this” just by itself. So it’s him in the flesh (or what he is holding looks like bread, tastes like bread ) but spiritually it IS is indeed his flesh.

Otherwise it will be idol worship,imo. Worshipping bread would be something I would think is what some Islamists would assume for example.

And I think St. Augustine (pardon me if I don’t have the link nor get the exact words right) that Jesus holds his own body in his hands (ie not holding physical bread) but his body.

MJ

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Dear friends in Christ:

Please read and explain were and if I have a incorrect understanding of Protestants and John Six:

Here friends is the ‘Rest of the Story:”

The Protestant position as I understand it is anchored on verse 63:”It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” [RSV]

Rebuttal:
This very passage is explained by Jesus as being a reference NOT to cardinal flesh; but His soon to be Glorified, Risen and Perfected Heavenly Body.

#1. Understood correctly Jesus Himself [who is Spirit and truth] Jn. 4:23-24. So He speaks of Himself; and His soon to be Glorified Body; Blood; Soul and Divinity.

#1. [41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” [42] They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, `I have come down from heaven’?” [Obviously thinking cardinal-body]

Do you really think that Jesus thought that His body did not matter? No He was not talking about His body at all. He was talking about the spirit of the world.

Rom.8
5For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

[43] Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. [44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; [48] I am the bread of life. [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [obtain Grace] [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” [Again cardinal body]

When Jesus is talking of Himself as bread, He is talking about Himself as “the word”

Jn.1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

#2. Notice Jesus does not recant His Teaching: rather He explains it again.

[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man [who is GOD!] and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

He is saying His flesh (word) is food indeed. This is confirmed in v.63:”It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

#3. Admittedly the Apostles have a distinct advantage of understanding. Both from participation in the “Last Supper” where they were appointed “Priest” [Do this in memory of Me] and a three year education of life with the Son of God.

55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

He who hears and follows His words abides in Him and He in them.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

#4. Christ could not be more clear or more specific.

[60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
#5. Jesus Lets them go having discerned there lack of Faith and understanding. [64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

#6. Jesus goes to tell them that they have a wrong and only human understanding. [65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

#7. Jesus then ask the Apostles: Do you wish to leave me too? No further explanation; only a challenge to there Faith and correct understanding. [67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”

And the response confirms Christ words as Literally True; and affirms a high degree of faith in His Spoken Word…. [68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; [69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Some of His disciples thought He talked of canabalism and were turned off. The 11 knew that He was talking symbolically. Peter even confirms what His master said. Jn.6
68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? **thou hast the words of eternal life. **

#8. This is immediately a Chief Dogma of Christ. Accepted, lived and Faithfully practiced and TAUGHT: Mt.26-28; Mk.14:22-24; Lk.22:19-21; John Six; Paul 1st. Cor. 11:22-29.…

#9. Ist. Cor. 11: “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 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."
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Notice not [any] “bread” BUT “THE BREAD”, not [any] “wine” “BUT THE WINE”

V. 25 shows that Jesus was talking symbolically. Was the cup in Jesus hand actually the new covenant? No IT WAS SYMBOLIC of the new covenant. And is done as a remembrance of Christ’s life and death and the partaking of His words of life that His church holds in common.
1Cor10
16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

#10. And take note of the final statement: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Meaning beings God’s judgment upon themselves.! IMPOSSIBLE IF THEY WWERE ONLY EATING BREAD AND WINE!

God Bless,
Pat

Why would that be impossible? This is a sacrament ordained of Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus is merely confirming and emphasising His earlier warning.
1Cor.11
22What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

He is emphasising the reverent and holy aspect of this sacrament.

 

[Radical]

no, Radical, it is not. It is the understanding of the Apostles, their successors, and all members of His One church up until today. I just posted some quotes from the Fathers on the Eucharist.

what you seem to do is read the ECFs through the lens of your modern catholic understanding…there are quite a number of ways that the ECFs could view the elements as being truly the flesh/body and blood of Christ w/o involving a real somatic presence (RSP). Tertullian, for example understood the elements as figures of the actual body and blood…but it is possible that he also understood that the figures make the actual thing present in some form (though far short of a RSP)…e.g. the body being present within the figure by way of the power or spiritual significance that is transferred from the body to the bread. Greek philosophy often downplayed the importance of the physical world and, as such, it wouldn’t be out of place for an ECF to focus upon what was transpiring WRT the power or spiritual reality. If there was a spiritual transformation or a transfer WRT the “power of salvation” then, in what could be said to be the more important realm (the actual reality) it would be fair to say (in their view) that the bread had become the body of Christ…but this would be nothing approaching a RSP…Therefore, quoting little snippets from the ECFs doesn’t really establish much WRT their belief in a RSP unless you know their philosophy well enough to declare this HOW Irenaeus (for example) understood that the bread was Christ’s body.

Luther also still held this opinon, and was scandalized when the Reformers fell into heresy with regard to it.

Luther made a good start, but left a lot still to do.

No, Radical, that is not what it says. You are reading into the passage. It says that the Son of God is trampled underfoot,…

I read your response on Hebrews 10 and Corinthians 11 and I think you missed the mark and didn’t even hit the substance of my argument…so I don’t see a need to respond.

I look forward to how you will explain away the writings of the early fathers.

well let’s only deal with the ECFs more if the opening poster wants to take the thread in that direction.

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;7724999]It depends, Pat, on which "ptortestant " you are speaking of.

While Lutherans are more inclined to support the RP from the Last Supper accounts you reference than by John 6, we generally would concur with what you say here.

His blessing also with you,
Jon

Hi Jon,

Nice to be talking with you again.

In my post I was going from a foundation that I hold to be both logical and true: There can be; and therefore is only a single truth to any specific issue.

It would then seem that either I am completely correct or I am incorrect because …

My position is that I’m completely correct and that there is no space for even a partial difference in understanding.

God Bless,
Pat