Is my understanding correct?

[PJM]

=Richard Kastner;7733615]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:

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.

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.”

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

My dear friend in Christ;

Christ was saying THAT HIS CORPORAL Body did not matter: [NOT His Glorified Body; Blood Soul and Divinity."

1st. Cor.15: 38 - 53 "But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. and another for the Risen and Glorified Christ… see last verse][40] There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. **** It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. **[44] It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. **But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. **[47] The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; **the second man is from heaven. [48] As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. [49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. ** I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, [52] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality"

To affirm your articulated understanding Jesus Himself, plus Mt…Mk. Lk. Jn, and St Paul woud all have to be in GREVIOUS error. Seems at least EXTREMELY unlikely. Further the eary church also would have to wrong as the Practice was continued right from the ressurection going forward.

The Term for Eucharist began as ‘The Breaking of the Bread": Luke.24: 35 "Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. Acts.2: 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,"

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.) “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.”

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.) “For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)”

My friend yours is an impossible task: God, Five Apostles, The Bible, Tradition and Practice and the early Fathers all are articulate and specific in there opposition to your views; you may wish to pray about this? Mt. 26; Mk.14; Lk. 22; John 6 and Paul 1st.Cor. 11…

God Bless You,
Pat

Pat

 

[JonNC]

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

I wouldn’t argue with this, Martin, except I also wouldn’t participate in a discussion involving the metaphysical - substance and accidents, since Christ does not go into details in this way. What we see, taste, and touch appears to be bread. What we receive is His body. It is indeed His body.

Now Paul in Corinthians says, *“The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ?” * So might say this means it is both bread and His body. But even this this I don’t view in terms of the physical. When I receive Communion, I receive His body and blood, under that which is seen, bread and wine.

Jon

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;7739675]I wouldn’t argue with this, Martin, except I also wouldn’t participate in a discussion involving the metaphysical - substance and accidents, since Christ does not go into details in this way. What we see, taste, and touch appears to be bread. What we receive is His body. It is indeed His body.

Now Paul in Corinthians says, *“The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ?” * So might say this means it is both bread and His body. But even this this I don’t view in terms of the physical. When I receive Communion, I receive His body and blood, under that which is seen, bread and wine.

Jon

Hi Jon,

That pretty much is the Catholic Dogma… and as you indicate that “bread and wine” of the senses is termed “the accidents”

God Bless my friend,
Pat

 

[Richard_Kastner]

My dear friend in Christ;

Christ was saying THAT HIS CORPORAL Body did not matter: [NOT His Glorified Body; Blood Soul and Divinity."

**1st. Cor.15: 38 - 53

“But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. and another for the Risen and Glorified Christ… see last verse][40] There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable,** what is raised is imperishable. **** It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. **[44] It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. **But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. **[47] The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; **the second man is from heaven. [48] As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. [49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. ** I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, [52] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality”

To affirm your articulated understanding Jesus Himself, plus Mt…Mk. Lk. Jn, and St Paul woud all have to be in GREVIOUS error. Seems at least EXTREMELY unlikely. Further the eary church also would have to wrong as the Practice was continued right from the ressurection going forward.

The Term for Eucharist began as ‘The Breaking of the Bread": Luke.24: 35 "Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. Acts.2: 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,"

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.) “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.”

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.) “For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)”

My friend yours is an impossible task: God, Five Apostles, The Bible, Tradition and Practice and the early Fathers all are articulate and specific in there opposition to your views; you may wish to pray about this? Mt. 26; Mk.14; Lk. 22; John 6 and Paul 1st.Cor. 11…

God Bless You,
Pat

Pat

Jn.6:32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and **giveth life unto the world. **

Deu.8:3And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by **every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. **

Jn.6:63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh (spirit of the world) profiteth nothing: the **words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. **

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

That pretty much is the Catholic Dogma… and as you indicate that “bread and wine” of the senses is termed “the accidents”

God Bless my friend,
Pat

Hi Pat,
And based on what Melanchthon says in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, it is Lutheran doctrine:

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.

Jon

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;7742304]Hi Pat,
And based on what Melanchthon says in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, it is Lutheran doctrine:

Jon

Hi Jon,

I’ve read 'The Confession" and its a beautiful document…

However one [meaning another Faith… this not being the only topic on which we are not in agreement] may not assume rights not granted to them. It is clear and IMO indispuitable that the CC position if afirmed and confirmed in the Bible… Mt. 16:15-19; Mt. 18:18; clearlt and necessiarly give the needed unlimied power of Governance to Peter and the apostles.

What is give to the CC by God; rest and resides in the CC. So the determination that Apostolic Succession is required is recogonized by Christ Himself. [Jn. 14:16-17; Jn.17:15-19].

In my heart, I would like to agree with you; but what is God’s Will; IS God’s will.

God Bless my friend!
Pat