John 6 and Eucharist?

[bene7]

Mickey:

CHAPTER VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. (From the epistle of St Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyraeans)

It’s all too vague, Mickey. You don’t know if he meant it figuratively or not. He seems to allude to the fact that their real problem was with belief in the resurrection. Notice they also abstained from prayer? Obviously they weren’t believers, what true believer would abstain from prayer?

Also, since I don’t accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, and you believe that that is what Ignatious is referring to, then you should not be conversing with me either privately or publicly: “It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public.” Also he states that if they do not have the proper belief then they will not rise. If Ignatious is saying what you think he is saying, then this is a far greater matter than you think - salvation itself is at stake.

Did St John teach him incorrectly?

I doubt John taught anything or anyone incorrectly, but we don’t really know what John actually taught him, do we? There are other possibilities:

1. You misunderstand Ignatius - it’s hardly an exhaustive, doctrinal discourse.
2. Ignatius misunderstood John.
3. You’re reading your own doctrinal position into his letter.
4. Ignatius formed his own idea about the eucharist

You certainly can’t treat his letter like Holy Spirit inspired, inerrant Scripture. I believe this whole issue must be settled by what is revealed in Scripture, not the writings of mere men.

Blessing,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Philthy:

As has already been pointed out, if this were the case then Christ would be guilty of misleading them.

He’s wasn’t misleading anyone, they simply failed to understand with their carnal minds, drew offense, and they left. Jesus could hardly be accused of misleading them, nor was He at all obligated to run after them with further explanation. What he actually was dong was expose, bring to the surface, their unbelief in Him. The disciples He chose didn’t take offense and leave. Jesus was always exposing the deep rooted unbelief in men’s hearts, as well as preparing them for when faith really mattered - post crucifixion and resurrection.

I don’t understand your quote from Wayne Grudem. It makes no sense to me in respect to John six.

In addition, there are biblical examples, precedents you might say, where the disciples mistook him to be speaking literally when he was actually was not in John 4:31-34 and Matt 15:5-12, and he corrects there misunderstanding.

John 4:31-34 is a perfect example of Jesus using the eating of food metaphorically. If you want a precedent for Jesus employing a metaphor for eating (like in John 6), there it is! . Yes, He explained Himself to His disciples in John 4, but you must keep in mind they were His chosen disciples, He was preparing them to be His Apostles after He ascended. For instance:

LUKE 8:10 “And He said, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the
kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, in order that seeing they
may not see, and hearing they may not understand.”

Jesus never intentionally mislead anyone, but He was not obligated to explain Himself or His words to anyone. Especially to unbelievers. Better that He expose their unbelief, they repent, believe and live.

Phil, you assume and assert that Jesus, in John six, was making reference to what He said (or would say) to His Disciples in the upper room the night of His betrayal. That the two events are directly connected. But there’s no proof of that, whatsoever. John doesn’t even record the words of Jesus in the upper-room where Jesus said, “Take eat, this is my body…”, etc. And the three Gospel records that do record His upper-room instructions don’t record what Jesus said in John six. The Bible nowhere links them together. Nowhere do any of the Gospel writers state that what Jesus said about eating His body and drinking His blood in John six was literally fulfilled by the Disciples that night in the upper-room. Nor did Jesus Himself say to His disciples, after they ate the bread and drank of the cup, that they now have eternal life, like He said in John 6:54. But instead He told them to eat the bread and drink the cup as often as they come together “in remembrance” of Him. The two accounts are vastly different and serve two totally different purposes.

The term “real presence” used by early church writers is vague indeed. None clearly define it or explain their intended use of it. You guys always read your own fully developed doctrine of “transubstantiation” into it. But not even that was accepted by Rome as dogma until 1215 A.D. The idea that the Church from the very beginning believed they were literally eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus is, to say the least, incredulous.

Good one bene! Way to stick to your guns! It comes from…the bible!

Yeah, but he thought my “guns” were empty.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

ncgolf:

How does this happen? Actually I dont know exactly … it is a mystery but not a fantasy … but I believe it. Your quote “How can it.” is eerily similiar to Mary’s response to the angel, “How can this be since I know not man” at the Annunciation. Yet she responded “but according to your will.” She did not fully understand either but believed and trusted God.

But you avoided the fact that Jesus never said in John six that eating His flesh and drinking His blood was “food for the soul.” If He wouldn’t have first said all that He did in verses 32-51 about BELIEVING, then maybe I could accept your interpretation. But what you’re asking me to do is ignore a major portion of that chapter and believe an interpretation which I do not think fits the WHOLE context. Figuratively He calls Himself the “true Bread of life.” Not just to sustain physical life, like the manna, but the actual source of eternal life. He alludes to His crucifixion in verse 51 where His body is given as a substitutionary sin-sacrifice for the sins of the world, and His blood shed for the price paid for man’s eternal redemption. It becomes extremely obvious to me that to “eat and drink” is to internalize (personally believe) what His body and blood accomplished there on the cross for us - resulting in eternal life (John 6:40, 47, 51, 54, 63) . “That whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” is a promise replete in the Gospel account of John - chapter six is certainly not an exception.

Blessing,
Bene

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

There are other possibilities:

1. You misunderstand Ignatius - it’s hardly an exhaustive, doctrinal discourse.
2. Ignatius misunderstood John.
3. You’re reading your own doctrinal position into his letter.
4. Ignatius formed his own idea about the eucharist

You are really reaching deep in an attempt to justify your revisionist symbolic interpretation. Ignatius misunderstood John? That’s especially unique.
Okay, how about this one:

**CHAPTER VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP. **
**See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. **
St Ignatius

Is he misunderstanding St John again?

 

[Mickey]

Now let’s see what Justin Martyr has to say.

Justin Martyr

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. 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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus* (First Apology 66 A.D. 151]).

Please answer something truthfully for me, bene. The Real Presence is obvious from Scripture, but you don’t accept it. You also discard 2000 years of Christian witnesses and saints, some of whom were taught by the Apostles. Here is the question:

Why have you decided to adhere to the doctrine of some fringe reformers who came along about 1600 years after Christ and denied the most Holy Sacrament of the ancient Catholic Church?

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

The term “real presence” used by early church writers is vague indeed. None clearly define it or explain their intended use of it. You guys always read your own fully developed doctrine of “transubstantiation” into it. But not even that was accepted by Rome as dogma until 1215 A.D. The idea that the Church from the very beginning believed they were literally eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus is, to say the least, incredulous.

The developed doctrine of Transubstantiation as defined at the Council of Florence in 1215 was not a novelty of doctrine but a refinement in understanding of the “howness” of the transformation. To this very day the Eastern Orthodox, who are at least as adamant as Catholics in insisting on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist choose not to define the character of Christ’s presence. The Western definition was forced in response to a heresy similar to your own which had not troubled the East.

To say that the Church from the very beginning did *not *believe in the real presence seems “incredulous” (to adopt your novel turn of phrase).

 

[mercygate]

2. Ignatius misunderstood John.

bene, this challenge displays unfathomable impudence. Ignatius was the DIRECT disciple of John. Iganatiuis was evangelized by John. John taught him everything he knew about Jesus and the faith. Outside the New Testament, there is no more authentic theological resource concerning this doctrine than Ignatius of Antioch.

 

[Kay_Cee]

bene7:

I’ll answer this, but in the rest of your reply you did not respond congruently with what I had originally stated in context.

Yes, angels are spirit beings with personality, capable of great intelligence and moral responsibility. Each angel was created individually and separately by God. Unlike mankind where one man and one woman were originally created and the rest of us are born (begotten) from them. All humanity is federally connected to Adam (our federal head), and so when Adam sinned we all sinned (in him, Rom. 5:12). Hence, all of us are “born” sinners - proved by the fact that all of us die whether we’ve personally sinned or not (i.e., infants). When one believes in Jesus Christ (Himself an “Adam,” a new Federal Head) he is created new in Christ and His (Christ’s) righteousness is imputed to him. He cannot lose it because it is not his own.

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God IN HIM” (2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Rom. 5:19; Phil. 3:9).

Of course God only creates that which is “good” but, like Adam and Eve, angels were created with a free will. And at a certain time a number of them (Scripture seems to allude to a third) rebelled inwardly against God, along with Satan, and they each fell from the state of holiness in which they were created. They’re “fallen” angels, also known as “demons.” God in His sovereignty has provided no plan of redemption for them as He has for the descendants of Adam. They have been “actualized” in their fallen state.

The holy angels were not as you say “granted eternal life.” They never lost the life in which they were created. They remained holy. They are referred to in Scripture as THE “holy angels,” so it is assumed that their state of holiness was actualized - i.e., they will NEVER sin, they will never rebel, they will never fall from that holy state in which they were created and now exist.

There will come a time (at the resurrection of our bodies), when we who have been redeemed, reconciled to God, justified and sanctified through faith in Christ, will also, like the holy angels, be actualized. Our position in Christ will also be our condition. We will not be incapable of ever sinning again. It’s not that we won’t have a free will, but in our glorified state we will have no desire, whatsoever, to sin. We shall be “like Christ” (our new Federal Head, see 1 John 3:2) and remain in perfect fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, our fellow brethren in Christ, and the holy angels FOREVER.

Blessings,
Bene

Bene, please take this discussion to the the new thread about the Nature of Eternal Life. I’ve been waiting for you over there.

Kay Cee

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

He’s wasn’t misleading anyone, they simply failed to understand with their carnal minds, drew offense, and they left. Jesus could hardly be accused of misleading them, nor was He at all obligated to run after them with further explanation.

You fail to understand that he made a statement which they legitimately interpreted literally on the basis of how he chose to express himself through the language that they understood perfectly. The fact that you and I are having this discussion is a most concrete example of the simple fact that his language, if it is not meant to be taken literally, is legitimately confusing. He is obligated I think (and so does Grudem), and the bible shows that under similar circumstances in other accounts he took the time to explain his meaning. If you think such an obligation is limited to his chosen ones, then you have to reconcile why he took the time to “explain” to Nicodemus his confusion over “born again” in John 3.

bene7:

What he actually was dong was expose, bring to the surface, their unbelief in Him. The disciples He chose didn’t take offense and leave.

Correct, the disciples were simply bewildered. And why (despite their belief in him)? Because Jesus had just told them they needed to eat his body! That is the whole point:everyone there that day took him to mean what he said LITERALLY - whether they “had faith” in him or not. And why did they ALL take him literally? Because of WHAT HE SAID, the words he chose conveyed only one meaning to everyone there. If he didn’t mean what he said literally then he misled them(in addition to exposing their disbelief) Plain and simple.

bene7:
Jesus was always exposing the deep rooted unbelief in men’s hearts, as well as preparing them for when faith really mattered - post crucifixion and resurrection.
He never did it by intentionally misleading them.

bene7:

I don’t understand your quote from Wayne Grudem. It makes no sense to me in respect to John six.

My bringing up Grudem’s statement was to add independent verification of the concept that Jesus can not be guilty of ‘misleading’ people, that was all. Grudem applied the concept to argue in favor of a physical resurrection body, Im using the concept to argue for a literal interpretation of John 6.

bene7:

John 4:31-34 is a perfect example of Jesus using the eating of food metaphorically. If you want a precedent for Jesus employing a metaphor for eating (like in John 6), there it is! . Yes, He explained Himself to His disciples in John 4, but you must keep in mind they were His chosen disciples, He was preparing them to be His Apostles after He ascended.

This would carry substantially more weight if, in fact, he corrected his teaching at a later time - exclusively to his “chosen ones”. Without that, you are now simply bending Scripture to fit your theology, no? Everyone interpreted him literally. Some chose to follow anyhow, others abandoned him. He never corrected what he said because he meant every word.

bene7:

Jesus never intentionally mislead anyone, but He was not obligated to explain Himself or His words to anyone. Especially to unbelievers. Better that He expose their unbelief, they repent, believe and live.

Again, you are twisting it. He spoke in a manner that EVERYONE understood to be literal. That is, EVERYONE understood it to be literal BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH HE SPOKE. IF he didnt mean it literally, THEN he did mislead everyone, and the obligation to clarify remains. IF he did mean it literally, then there is no obligation which would explain why no retraction occurs in Scrpture

bene7:

Phil, you assume and assert that Jesus, in John six, was making reference to what He said (or would say) to His Disciples in the upper room the night of His betrayal.

You must be confusing someone elses post with mine - I never integrated the upper room at all…

bene7:
The term “real presence” used by early church writers is vague indeed.
Blessings,
Bene

I was waiting for this to happen: you chastised me for not taking the word “believe” to mean exactly what you wanted it to mean - what you described as the “obvious” meaning (The rom 4:5 thread) despite biblical examples of other uses of the word. And here now, we have you claiming that the “real presence” means something other than being really present. Too funny! Well at least our minds work alike. No doubt you have to make such a claim otherwise you’d be forced to shift gears theologically.

Phil

 

[CindyGia]

MariaG:

I was thinking on this yesterday as I was driving. Truly God has given so many reinforcements to this.

Where was Christ placed when born?

A manger.

What is a manger?

An eating trough.

The passover meal, a lamb must be eaten, not figuratively, but actually eaten or the sacrifice is not complete.

Who is the Lamb of God?

Christ. We must eat the lamb for the sacrifice to be valid.God Bless,
Maria

Truly outstanding Maria. This was a grace given you to contemplate and understand. Most people don’t receive graces like that to understand this comparison.
Well done!

 

[rbrooks]

Aaron I.:

John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Let’s be honest, the 666 in Revelations is without doubt referring to Nero. But Protestants love to play with this end-times prophecy stuff, so there you go. The true anti-Christs are the Protestant Churches who lead people away from the true presence.

Now that’s funny! I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there!

Rich

 

[Kurt_G]

bene7:

…If He wouldn’t have first said all that He did in verses 32-51 about BELIEVING, then maybe I could accept your interpretation. But what you’re asking me to do is ignore a major portion of that chapter and believe an interpretation which I do not think fits the WHOLE context…

This is very telling about where you’re coming from, bene. No one is asking you to ignore anything in John 6, although that is exactly what you ask of us. Your belief in Jesus’ words stops cold, halfway through verse 51. After that point, you are ignoring the rest of John 6.

bene7:

…He alludes to His crucifixion in verse 51 where His body is given as a substitutionary sin-sacrifice for the sins of the world, and His blood shed for the price paid for man’s eternal redemption.

Thanks, every good Catholic Christian already believes that wonderful news just like you do, bene. We believe everything Jesus tells us in John 6. But you don’t believe everything Jesus tells us, because you have firmly fixed in your mind and “either/or” mentality regarding Jesus Christ, especially in John 6. For you, either He speaks spiritually, or He speaks physically, but He would never do both…Your quote about “ignoring Scripture” proves your bias, if you think that, to take the Catholic position, you must “give up” the earlier spiritual side of John 6.

bene7:

“That whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” is a promise replete in the Gospel account of John - chapter six is certainly not an exception…

We do believe in Him,
we even believe Him,
we even believe what He says.
We even try to do what He says.

It’s the “either/or” mindset, bene. Try a “both/and” mindset just for a short while. Try it on John 6, at least to feel where we’re coming from…
God Bless Us All!

 

[ncgolf]

bene7:

But you avoided the fact that Jesus never said in John six that eating His flesh and drinking His blood was “food for the soul.”

Nah … I didn’t avoid it. You asked where Jesus says it’s food and I gave Christ’s own words. If I eat the Body and Blood of Christ, if I eat anything it is food. If it is truly Christ’s body then it does more than food from earth can do. That can only nourish the body, Christ’s body and blood must also nourishes the soul as well, that nourishment is what Grace is. If you cannot see that Catholics literally consume His body and blood then you will not be able to see my comparison.

Bene7:

It becomes extremely obvious to me that to “eat and drink” is to internalize (personally believe) what His body and blood accomplished there on the cross for us - resulting in eternal life (John 6:40, 47, 51, 54, 63) .

Internalize … that is what we do … literally. You have to believe in Jesus and what He did on Calvary to believe in the Eucharist. Jesus Christ is inside of us, really and truly present. Why do you not think we believe in what Jesus did for us on the cross? Believing in the Eucharist in no way contradicts or diminishes what Jesus did on Calvary. Believing and particpating in the Eucharist Celebration unites us literally with the same sacrifice on Calvary. You put limits on what God can or cannot do but yours are based on what you interpret God can or should do. Many people say that what we say the Eucharist is cannot be or is a crazy idea but to truly believe takes a great amount of faith. When the priest consecrates the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, there are now fireworks for the eyes to see there is no outward change in the bread and wine. We can only see it through the eyes of faith.

 

[MariaG]

Hi Bene,

Obviously you don’t have to respond to me, but you keep insisting that the words be taken other than literally, but have not explained how that reconciles with the fact that if we take the words figuratively, those words at the time, and still today among some mean, “to do harm”. So if we are not to literally eat Christ, his words taken figuratively tell us we have no life in us unless we harm Christ?

Or that some of Paul’s words become nonsense?

Truly Bene, until you can explain these things, you are just asking me to replace my interpretation of Scripture with yours. One that the Early Church roundly rejected. So you would really need to explain that also.

**Why did those who were taught by the apostles themselves get it wrong? **And how do you reconcile that with Scripture that tells us that He will lead us to all truth? Where was the truth for over 1600 years if your interpretation is right?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[sandusky]

ncgolf:

Internalize … that is what we do … literally. You have to believe in Jesus and what He did on Calvary to believe in the Eucharist.

One must believe in Christ to participate in the Eucharist as biblically defined.

To participate in the Eucharist of the RCC, one must be Catholic.

ncgolf:

Jesus Christ is inside of us, really and truly present.

Indeed; He dwells within each believer (Gal 2:20; Col 1:27; Jn 17:23). The Eucharist doesn’t make one anymore indwelt than that.

I believe in the real spiritual presence of the Lord in the Eucharist, but a physical presence? The articulation of transubstantiation and its philosophical underpinnings developed over a period of more than 1,000 years; it was not in the thoughts of those Galileans in the upper room almost 2,000 years ago.

ncgolf:

Believing and particpating in the Eucharist Celebration unites us literally with the same sacrifice on Calvary.

Belief in Christ, at the moment of regeneration, is what connects one with Christ’s sacrifice, really. At the time one believes, he is crucified with Christ, and the old man is put to death. The Eucharist has nothing to do with that, it is, rather, a remembrance, as Jesus said.

ncgolf:

Many people say that what we say the Eucharist is cannot be or is a crazy idea but to truly believe takes a great amount of faith.

The question I have, is what does believing in the Eucharist, as the Catholic believes in it, gain for a believer that the believer does not already have?

Your interpretation of the Eucharist purports to give to the believer, something that he already possesses: the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, and eternal life.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Again, you are twisting it. He spoke in a manner that EVERYONE understood to be literal. That is, EVERYONE understood it to be literal BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH HE SPOKE. IF he didnt mean it literally, THEN he did mislead everyone, and the obligation to clarify remains. IF he did mean it literally, then there is no obligation which would explain why no retraction occurs in Scrpture

That’s silly Philthy.

You assume that they rightly understood. Could they have misunderstood?

So what if Jesus didn’t explain it. His lack of explanation shows one of two things: He meant it literally, or He was content to leave them in their misunderstanding. As Christ sometimes explains things, so too, God sometimes leaves those who misunderstand Him in their misunderstanding, and even turns them over to it.

What fascinates me, is that you are willing to take every other metaphor written within in scripture, and in all literature, metaphorically, with this one exception.

Philthy, Jesus said if your right eye sins, pluck it out, and He said that if your hand or foot causes you to stumble, cut it off, and He didn’t explain it.

Therefore, according to your reasoning, if I ever meet you in this life, I expect to see you wearing at least an eye patch and probably even a hook or two.

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

What fascinates me, is that you are willing to take every other metaphor written within in scripture, and in all literature, metaphorically, with this one exception.

What fascinates me is that you and others like you, have adopted this revisionist theology while you attempt to trivialize an obvious literal teaching.

sandusky:

Philthy, Jesus said if your right eye sins, pluck it out, and He said that if your hand or foot causes you to stumble, cut it off, and He didn’t explain it.

Now that is obvious metaphor.

 

[ncgolf]

sandusky:

Indeed; He dwells within each believer (Gal 2:20; Col 1:27; Jn 17:23). The Eucharist doesn’t make one anymore indwelt than that.

He offers that you can receive him physically too. It is the same Christ who was on Calvary that we consume during the Eucharistic Celeberation. If I consume something it becomes part of me, you focus only on the spirit while the Eucharist is both spiritual and physical. How can anyone on this earth get closer than the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ.

sandusky:

I believe in the real spiritual presence of the Lord in the Eucharist, but a physical presence? The articulation of transubstantiation and its philosophical underpinnings developed over a period of more than 1,000 years; it was not in the thoughts of those Galileans in the upper room almost 2,000 years ago.

Of course not … Christ had not died and resurrected. This revelation came only after the Holy Sprit came over them and they reflected on all that Christ had done and said. But John knew it’s significance hence John 6 and the Bread of Life discourse. Holy smokes there is plenty we think we understand now only to find it more complex and intricate than we initially thought … i.e. the world is flat. This is not a reason to doubt Christ’s words and meaning in John 6.

sandusky:

Belief in Christ, at the moment of regeneration, is what connects one with Christ’s sacrifice, really. At the time one believes, he is crucified with Christ, and the old man is put to death. The Eucharist has nothing to do with that, it is, rather, a remembrance, as Jesus said.

What is regeneration?

sandusky:

The question I have, is what does believing in the Eucharist, as the Catholic believes in it, gain for a believer that the believer does not already have??

Jesus not only wants you to be with Him spiritually, He is also offering Himself physically. It is to know the awesome power and infinite humilty of our Creator. He humbled himself to walk the earth and die for us and still he humbles and offers Himself to us at each and every Mass. He suffers that we move Him through time and space and then eat Him. That is agape. He continually gives Himself so we may come to know Him deeper.

sandusky:

Your interpretation of the Eucharist purports to give to the believer, something that he already possesses: the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, and eternal life.

I am no theoligian and maybe someone else can answer this better but here is a response. Why would someone not wish to have such an intimate bond with Christ himself. I think you will never know the answer to this question by words alone. You at some point will have to step out and see for yourself. There is no laundry list of things you get, you will get what you need to make yourself a better Christian.

 

[Mickey]

ncgolf:

He offers that you can receive him physically too. It is the same Christ who was on Calvary that we consume during the Eucharistic Celeberation. If I consume something it becomes part of me, you focus only on the spirit while the Eucharist is both spiritual and physical. How can anyone on this earth get closer than the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ.Of course not … Christ had not died and resurrected. This revelation came only after the Holy Sprit came over them and they reflected on all that Christ had done and said. But John knew it’s significance hence John 6 and the Bread of Life discourse. Holy smokes there is plenty we think we understand now only to find it more complex and intricate than we initially thought … i.e. the world is flat. This is not a reason to doubt Christ’s words and meaning in John 6.
What is regeneration?Jesus not only wants you to be with Him spiritually, He is also offering Himself physically. It is to know the awesome power and infinite humilty of our Creator. He humbled himself to walk the earth and die for us and still he humbles and offers Himself to us at each and every Mass. He suffers that we move Him through time and space and then eat Him. That is agape. He continually gives Himself so we may come to know Him deeper.
I am no theoligian and maybe someone else can answer this better but here is a response. Why would someone not wish to have such an intimate bond with Christ himself. I think you will never know the answer to this question by words alone. You at some point will have to step out and see for yourself. There is no laundry list of things you get, you will get what you need to make yourself a better Christian.

AMEN to this wonderful post, ncgolf!
img102.imageshack.us/img102/1346/3barcross4fe.gif

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

The Eucharist has nothing to do with that, it is, rather, a remembrance, as Jesus said.

Remembrance is not synonymous with symbolic.