Is the Eucharist only a Symbol?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ufamtobie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

ufamtobie

Guest
Jesus told his Disciples I am the Living Bread come down from heaven. Whoever eats this Bread will live forever, and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh for the life of the world.

Then the Disciples/protestants complained and said “who can give us his flesh to eat!” …I mentioned the word Protestant because thats what these men were, they were in protest regarding our Lords words here.

Jesus, heard them complaining and He did not budge. Then Jesus said again, “Truely, Truely I say to you, unless you Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink his Blood, you have no life in YOU; he who eats my Flesh and Drinks my Blood has Eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day. For my Flesh is real food indeed and my Blood is real Drink indeed.” (John 6: 53-55)

Jesus Christ uses the words “INDEED” “TRUELY TRUELY I SAY TO YOU,” " I SOLEMNLY ASSURE YOU or in the King James Bible “VERILY, VERILY I SAY TO YOU” my point is that these words are STRONG WORDS for only a SYMBOL, don’t you think?

The Truth is it is not a symbol but the true presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen

**To all I say, No! To all Jesus Says, not me, INDEED, TRULY TRULY I SAY UNTO YOU, I SOLEMNLY ASSURE, VERILY VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU this is my BODY and BLOOD EAT and DRINK and LIVE FOREVER! All I do through the Grace of Our Lord Jesus is BELIEVE and EAT! AMEN:thumbsup: **

The Aramaic word for “EATS” means literally to Chew or munch on.

Then the Disciple complained again, saying "This is a hard saying WHO CAN ACCEPT IT! Many, of Jesus Disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him they walked away…(John 6: 60)****

WHO CAN ACCEPT IT SAID THESE ONCE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS? **The Answer is the Catholic Church ACCEPTS IT! AMEN!👍 **

These men above who had been with Him for months or years who were used to His Strange and extraordiary ways walked with him NO MORE. 😦

Now what did Jesus Christ Do? The answer is in the Bible (John 6: 66) Jesus Christ let them go! Jesus, did not say, HEY! Wait a minute men, you are taking my words too literally… These men took Jesus Christ Literally because, Jesus Christ, meant it LITERALLY! And these men could not BELIEVE IT, Like Many do today.😦

All Jesus said about the Bread of Life is the Revelation of the Spirit, the Spirit Makes it so.

In other Places in the Bible Jesus Clarified when he was Misunderstood, like, when the Apostles found him in a far out place and they thought he might be hungry. Jesus said…“I HAVE FOOD YOU KNOW NOT OF” Jesus knew what they were thinking and CLARIFIED them saying "MY FOOD IS TO DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER."

Why did not Jesus CLARIFY here concerning the EUCHARIST The Bread and Blood to those men who Left? The answer is Because Jesus knew **THEY UNDERSTOOD HIM CORRECTLY! **

Click beelow and here it.

youtube.com/watch?v=A-H7N6xLBiE

God Bless you on your journey home

Ufamtobie
 
It is not a symbol.
Like baptism it is a physical demonstration of a spiritual reality.
 
BTW there wernt enough threads on the subject you had to start another one?
 
The writings of the early church fathers reveal that they uniformly believed it to be the Body and Blood of our Lord. In John 6 and Matthew 26 Jesus was making plain, declarative sentences, not parables or speaking in the third person. He was quite clear and direct. He deliberately made provocative and challenging statements. He was always correct, if you believe in him at all.

Frankly, the disbelief in the Eucharist came about post-rebellion to justify and maintain separation from the Catholic Church. Plain and simple. It is directly against scripture as well as the non-canonical writings of the Apostles. It is directly against the practice of the early church and the writings of the early fathers. This is an area where those adhering to sola scriptura have been cheated.
 
This has been discussed ad nauseam here before.

Symbol is a problematic word, especially when used like this: “It’s only a symbol” or “It’s just a symbol.” However, symbols point toward the realities which they represent and can be powerful. In one sense, the Eucharist is a symbol, but not only does it point toward the Body and Blood of Christ… it is the body and blood of Christ. So while it is a symbol, it is certainly much more than that.

It’s probably more accurate to say that the Eucharist is a sign/action; in the words of Augustine, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.

This is not at variance with many Protestant communion’s beliefs about the Eucharist and sacraments. Lutherans and Anglican/Methodists embrace the Real Presence at the Eucharist. That doesn’t mean they embrace the philosophical concept of transubstantiation… but, then again, neither do the Orthodox.

Another aspect that often gets overlooked in John 6 is the understanding of “feast.” When Jesus told the disciples, “Have the people sit down,” the Greek word for “sit” really means, “recline.” You might sit down for a lunch, but one assumed the posture of reclining at a feast. And the word eucharistia is all over John 6 - a feast of thanksgiving.

O+
 
A few points:
John 6 is prior to the Last Supper. People were just as responsible for doing what he said THEN. We have no indication this is referring to a future event. He expected people to eat his flesh and drink his blood then! When did that mean? He tells us.
Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Click to expand...
Now about Jesus clarifying…are you suggesting he always clarified because that is not true as I am sure you will remember.
 
Rightlydivide said:
A few points:
John 6 is prior to the Last Supper. People were just as responsible for doing what he said THEN. We have no indication this is referring to a future event. He expected people to eat his flesh and drink his blood then! When did that mean? He tells us.

Now about Jesus clarifying…are you suggesting he always clarified because that is not true as I am sure you will remember.
Click to expand...
He was speaking the truth as the prophet that he is. Those present during the prophecies of the great prophets did not always live to see the prophecies come true. Does that mean they are false or merely figurative? No! Does timing determine the truth? No. Why the last supper then, since Jesus had already spoken the same words with the Apostles present? Were his words redundant? Why did he allow so many who protested His words to leave him?

You are conveniently forgetting the entirety of early church writings and practices. Unbroken practices for 1,500 years. Until someone knew better, I guess.
 
po18guy said:
He was speaking the truth as the prophet that he is. Those present during the prophecies of the great prophets did not always live to see the prophecies come true. Does that mean they are false or merely figurative? No! Does timing determine the truth? No. Why the last supper then, since Jesus had already spoken the same words with the Apostles present? Were his words redundant? Why did he allow so many who protested His words to leave him?

You are conveniently forgetting the entirety of early church writings and practices. Unbroken practices for 1,500 years. Until someone knew better, I guess.
Click to expand...
But there is nothing in here to indicate that this is a prophecy.
Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Click to expand...
He let them leave because he never forces anyone. There is nothing in the context to justify this belief that they did not understand is why they left.

BUT if that is the case Jesus did not always clarify.
 
If the Eucharist was just a symbol…
  • Than the Church couldn’t exist, because the Eucharist makes the Church
  • Than Jesus would not have died on the Cross, because the Eucharist is the spiritual Calvary
  • Than Jesus would have violated the Passover, because He would have not fulfilled the Passover
  • Than the Church would be committing idoltary at Mass, because we can only worship the Lord our God
  • Than Jesus would be insane for calling Himself the Bread from Heaven, because only an insane person would call himself a piece of bread
 
The reason the disciplies had a hard time with Jesus saying that they had to eat his flesh is because he was talking symbolically, but they took him to mean it literally. If you look before that verse it talks about them eating perishable manna in the desert but Jesus was saying he is the bread from heaven… because as we all know eternal life comes through him alone.

Was Jesus eating his own flesh when partaking in communion with the disciplies while he was still alive?
 
Eucharisted;4482825]If the Eucharist was just a symbol…
Click to expand...
  • Than the Church couldn’t exist, because the Eucharist makes the Church
Click to expand...
Your church perhaps…not mine
Than Jesus would not have died on the Cross, because the Eucharist is the spiritual Calvary
Click to expand...
Where do you get that?
  • Than Jesus would have violated the Passover, because He would have not fulfilled the Passover
Click to expand...
You can conflate the Eucharist and Calvary. We do not literally do that.
  • Than the Church would be committing idoltary at Mass, because we can only worship the Lord our God
Click to expand...
Well…
Than Jesus would be insane for calling Himself the Bread from Heaven, because only an insane person would call himself a piece of bread
Click to expand...
Would only an insane person call himself a door too? Or a gate?
 
Rightlydivide said:
But there is nothing in here to indicate that this is a prophecy.
Click to expand...
Except that He spoke it before it happened at the last supper.
He let them leave because he never forces anyone. There is nothing in the context to justify this belief that they did not understand is why they left.
Click to expand...
Well, Christ had then to ask even the Apostles if they were leaving as well. Why? It was a hard revolutionary teaching. Those who left him had followed Him for some time and hung on his every word. Was this a test of the depth of their faith?
BUT if that is the case Jesus did not always clarify.
Click to expand...
He clarified by his actions, the realization of prophecy. Thus, John 6 lead to Matthew 26. It must have impressed the Apostles and 1,500 years of successors, as they took it to heart and practiced it as often as they met. Subtracting the Protestant era, the Eucharist has been practiced for 1,975 years without fail. To disbelieve this is to paint the Twelve, the early church fathers, the Saints and all succeeding generations as wrong, or too dense to understand that he was speaking only figuratively.
 
=po18guy;4482885]Except that He spoke it before it happened at the last supper.
Click to expand...
Correct, essentially…except that is in most timelines a year later. So people were confused for a year? Kind of blows away the confusion argument…
Well, Christ had then to ask even the Apostles if they were leaving as well. Why? It was a hard revolutionary teaching. Those who left him had followed Him for some time and hung on his every word. Was this a test of the depth of their faith?
Click to expand...
And Peter answers that belief in Christ is “eternal life” unless you think I get eternal life if I take the Eucharist…which if that is all it takes…
He clarified by his actions, the realization of prophecy. Thus, John 6 lead to Matthew 26. It must have impressed the Apostles and 1,500 years of successors, as they took it to heart and practiced it as often as they met. Subtracting the Protestant era, the Eucharist has been practiced for 1,975 years without fail. To disbelieve this is to paint the Twelve, the early church fathers, the Saints and all succeeding generations as wrong, or too dense to understand that he was speaking only figuratively.
Click to expand...
I do not think the 12 took him literally at all. Certainly not. As far the Catholic Church believing it or others…the Bible is filled with people getting things wrong from the get go.
 
redeemedbyJesus said:
The reason the disciplies had a hard time with Jesus saying that they had to eat his flesh is because he was talking symbolically,
Click to expand...
Where does scripture say this? It does not. This is your private interpretation. Do you really believe that a heartless Jesus let hundreds walk away and go to hell??? This was a test of their faith, and that of the Apostles, because He asked them specifically if they would leave, too.
but they took him to mean it literally. If you look before that verse it talks about them eating perishable manna in the desert but Jesus was saying he is the bread from heaven… because as we all know eternal life comes through him alone.
Click to expand...
We also know that He will be with us to the end of the age. He said this after the John 6 discourse and the institution of the Eucharist at the last supper in Matthew 26 and Mark 14. Timing is everything in prophecy.
Was Jesus eating his own flesh when partaking in communion with the disciplies while he was still alive?
Click to expand...
Scripture does not say he ate it. It clearly says that he took it, gave thanks and gave it to the Apostles, commanding them to eat and drink. This is how Christ remains with us to the end of the age.
 
Jesus’ Body and Blood are real food and drink.

Stick to what the Church of God has always believed and not what innovators bring millenia later.
 
O.S.Luke said:
This has been discussed ad nauseam here before.

Symbol is a problematic word, especially when used like this: “It’s only a symbol” or “It’s just a symbol.” However, symbols point toward the realities which they represent and can be powerful. In one sense, the Eucharist is a symbol, but not only does it point toward the Body and Blood of Christ… it is the body and blood of Christ. So while it is a symbol, it is certainly much more than that.

It’s probably more accurate to say that the Eucharist is a sign/action; in the words of Augustine, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.

This is not at variance with many Protestant communion’s beliefs about the Eucharist and sacraments.
Lutherans and Anglican/Methodists embrace the Real Presence at the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
O.S. luke

You say that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ brings about AD NAUSEAM, in YOU when you hear/read it said again and again?

You are a Methodist, do you receive the EUCHARIST every day or every Sunday and if so, does this bring about you AD NAUSEAM when you so so?

It sounds like if it brings about Ad Nauseam in you when you hear Eucharist discussed again and again, you must feel this Ad Nauseam when you also partake of the Eucharist every Sunday or any day of the week?

O.S., you must remember where you are, you are here at a Catholic Website! I will use Our Lords strong words such as “INDEED,”… “I SOLEMNLY ASSURE YOU”…“TRUELY, TRUELY” and as in the Kings James verision “VERILY, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU” you will hear/read about the MOST HOLY EUCHARIST again and again 70X7 times, here at this Catholic Forum Amen! “TRANSUBSTANTIATION”

For we Catholics Show are true colors/SHOW ARE TRUE WORSHIP, when it comes to the EUCHARIST OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST/ THAT IS HIM! No matter how many, many times we hear or recieve Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, there is never, never Ad Nauseam! Amen

And I see your true colors of Ad Nauseam toward the Eucharist, when heard ONLY a few times.

**O.S. Luke, you mentioned above that “In one sense, the Eucharist is a symbol”

Luke, If Our Lord came down to you in BODY from heaven and showed you his nail marks on his hands and feet, his pireced side, OS Luke, would you think of him right there and then STILL as a “SYMBOL”, or being there in front of you TRUELY BEING GOD and MAN, BODY, SOUL, and DIVINITY?**

**Luke, the definition of SYMBOL is “Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible.” ** Now that being said…

B]The Eucahrist, does not “represent” Jesus Christ, IT IS JESUS CHRIST CHRIST.]

The Eucharist, does not represents something else by “association”. THE EUCHARIST AND JESUS CHRIST IS ONE AND THE SAME!

**The Eucharist, does not “resemble” Jesus Christ, IT IS JESUS CHRIST, TOTALY!. HEART, MIND, NAIL MARKS, A PIRCED SIDE, THAT HE SUFFERED FOR US ALL! ALSO IS HIS GLORY THAT HE HAS WITH HIS FATHER **

The Eucharist is not a “material object” used to represent something invisable. The Eucharist is Jesus Christ VISABLE 100% VISABLE, BODY, SOUL and DIVINITY! AMEN

THERFORE THE EUCHARIST IS NOT A "SYMBOL"

God Bless you on your journey HOME

Ufamtobie
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top