John 6

[Britta]

Kinsman:

Paul does not teach nor even hint to the doctrine of transubstantiation in this 1 Cor. passage.

Actually, I believe it is quite hinted to. Paul states in 1 Cor 11:23-26 “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant of my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remember of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

He then states in v.27 that “whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the** body and blood** of the Lord.”

 

[jimmy]

Kinsman:

I’m not presenting a “new translation.” Mine is an “interpretation.” Also, none of the Apostles taught transubstantiation. Can you show me in Scripture where Peter taught such a doctrine? In his first Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul conveyed to the Corinthians the reason Christ instituted the “Lord’s Supper”:

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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 He took the cup also 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."" (1 Cor. 11:23-26)

Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church was written about 55 A.D., some 20 years after Jesus instituted the “Lord’s Supper.” Notice in the above quote that Paul retains the physical elements of both the bread and the cup. And the symbolic ritual, he explains, *is not done for the sake of obtaining eternal life, as Jesus taught in John chapter six *(6:54, a teaching that would even exceed Roman Catholic doctrine), but it is to be done “in remembrance” of Him and *the proclamation of His death *(in respect to the New Covenant) until He comes.

You have a few problems with your post here.
First, just because it is a remembrance of him does not mean that that is all it is. There is no where that says, this is only a remembrance of me. It specifically says this is my body. You underlined the wrong parts, you should have underlined the parts where it says this is my body and this is my blood.
Second, you left out some very important verses.

26

For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep.* 31* But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34** If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment.** And the rest I will set in order, when I come. *

They may never have said the word transsubstantiation but they certainly did teach it. If it is just a symbol then this verse has no meaning at all, because you can not eat a symbol unworthily. It specifically says that if you eat it unworthily you eat and drink judgement unto yourself. That is a pretty powerfull statement there. This group of lines pretty much states that it is Jesus’s boody and blood.
Again it never says that remembrance excludes that it is the real presence.

 

[jimmy]

Why do you ignore all the quotes I gave you? Did you even read them? They are pretty straight forward about there beleif that it is the body and blood of Jesus. They were all written in the first century after Christ, so you can be quite sure that is the teaching of the apostles. Iranaous’s writtings were even against heresies, so he is flat out telling you that it is wrong if you believe that it is not Jesus’s body and blood.

Your interpretation is definatly new. It is less than 400 years old. That is very new considering Christ died and was raised 1971 years ago. About 1/5 the age of the true interpretation.

 

[Strider]

Kinsman:

.By the authority that God has given me the ability to read, and common sense to comprehend simple language. It is my personal responsibity as a believer in Christ Jesus to study God’s magnificent Word.

I kind of suspected this.
While these verses are not specifically part of this thread, they may help to focus it.
May I respectfully draw your attention to:
Acts 8:26 --36
Acts 20:35 (Those words of Jesus are not found in the Gospels)
2 Peter 1:20
2 Peter 3:15,16

That’s enough for now. The teaching authority of the Catholic Church is for another thread.

God bless

 

[Kinsman]

Britta:

It is not “priestcraft” but completely established by God Himself.

Can you show me anywhere in Scripture where Christ gives to His Apsotles (and their so-called “successors”) the power to change common bread and wine into His body and blood, simply by mouthing the words “Hoc est corpus meum?” To claim to have this power, as the RC “priests” do, is tantamount to priestcraft. In all of my reading, and I have read extensively, I have yet to find it documented where Christ actually gave the Apostles the power to make such a miraculous transformation. And if the Apostles were never given such a power, and there’s absolutely no indication that they were, how can the RC priests claim they got it from the Apostles?

Regarding the “mass” being an “unbloody sacrifice” and a time developed doctrine you said:

History shows that the early church believed this from the very start.

But history reveals that the celebration of the “eucharist” was first considered a “thank-offering.” Philip Schaff writes in his monumental, literary work on the The History of the Christian Church: “Down to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the eucharistic elements were presented as a thank-offering by the members of the congregation themselves, and the remnants went to the clergy and the poor…The writers of the second century keep strictly within the limits of the notion of a congregational thank-offering.” It is not until later that is was changed from a “thank-offering” to a “sin-offering,” and from the congregational offering to a priest offering.

“Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life” (John 6:54) “so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:56-58)

So based on this, Britta, do you believe that by participating in your “mass,” thereby physically eating His actual body and drinking His actual blood, you have eternal life? That it is one’s participation in this ritual that imparts eternal life? Hence, anyone who does not participate in the RC “mass” does not, and cannot, have eternal life, right? Since Rome claims that only their ordained “priests” have the power to change the elements.

So this then begs the question - are you given eternal life the very first time you eat and drink His blood, or must you do this throughout your life to retain it?. But if you can lose it, then it (the life imparted by eating and drinking) was not at all “eternal,” as Jesus states. And ef RCs are told they can lose their salvation through an of act unrepentant mortal sin, then Jesus was not straightforward when He said in Jn. 6, “he who eats this bread shall live forever.” Or could it be that in John 6 Jesus is not at all talking about “communion,” specfically the “eucharist?” And righteousnes and eternal life are free gifts through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Britta]

Kinsman:

Can you show me anywhere in Scripture where Christ gives to His Apsotles (and their so-called “successors”) the power to change… ?

Thanks for the questions and I’ll do my best to make my points.

Unfortunately, limiting the information to scripture takes away much of the evidence from history. Afterall, Mass was being said long before the books of the bible as we know them today were assembled.

In order to fully understand the truth, we must look also to history and many of the early church fathers’ writings. St. Ignatius has wonderful writings on this and many other issues. He was a disciple of the Apostle John. St. Irenaeus is another great source. He was taught by St. Polycarp, who was taught by the Apostle John. Pretty credible, IMHO. With all due respect, it is more credible than many writings of people 2000 years later who seem to “really know” what Jesus meant. I don’t know if you have had a chance in your readings to read our early church fathers’ writings, but they are very enlightening.

Regarding the “mass” being an “unbloody sacrifice” and a time developed doctrine you said: But history reveals that the celebration of the “eucharist” was first considered a “thank-offering.” Philip Schaff writes…

I don’t know much about Schaff’s work but from what you have written, is sounds pretty straightforward. What I can add is this. Eucharist means “thanksgiving.” We are giving thanks to God for Jesus having died upon the cross in atonement for our sins. When Abraham lead Isaac up to the mountain, Isaac asked his father where the lamb was for the offering. Abraham prophetically replied “God Himself will provide the lamb.” (Gen 22:8) Abraham did not have to sacrifice his son to God. God sacrificed His only son to us, Jesus and now we have His body and blood.

continued…

 

[Britta]

So based on this, Britta, do you believe that by participating in your “mass,” thereby physically eating His actual body and drinking His actual blood, you have eternal life? That it is one’s participation in this ritual that imparts eternal life? Hence, anyone who does not participate in the RC “mass” does not, and cannot, have eternal life, right?

Wrong. This is one of many ways God has given us grace. Though this is the best way and the closest you will ever get to Jesus on earth, there are other ways God will impart grace upon the asking. Through prayer, humble repentance and request for forgiveness, bible study, church, etc. All are means of receiving God’s free gift.

However, there are things we can do to separate ourselves from His grace. Things that would go against His will. I could refer to many scripture passages to make my point, but I get the feeling you are well versed so I will save space.

So this then begs the question - are you given eternal life the very first time you eat and drink His blood, or must you do this throughout your life to retain it?. But if you can lose it, then it (the life imparted by eating and drinking) was not at all “eternal,” as Jesus states… Or could it be that in John 6 Jesus is not at all talking about “communion,” specfically the “eucharist?” And righteousnes and eternal life are free gifts through faith in Jesus Christ.

Again, yes and no. As I mentioned above, we are given grace through many different sources. Jesus did not lie when He said we will have eternal life. But He also said that we must “remain in Him” to have eternal life. We can reject Him through sin.

We know the wages of sin is death. Whenever we sin, we run the risk having rejected His grace because grace and sin cannot co-exist. Therefore, we must repent and ask forgiveness to enter back into that eternal life. So when that happens, I’m going to a priest for confession and then to Jesus in the Eucharist.

This is such a rich topic and I’m sure I don’t do it justice but hopefully it is a start to help see the RC side.

God Bless

 

[Kevan]

Kinsman:

But if you can lose it, then it (the life imparted by eating and drinking) was not at all “eternal.”

Just to clarify terms and allow the discussion to proceed unhindered, understand “eternal” to mean “without beginning or end.” The life was eternal a long time before you received it, and it will continue to be eternal a long time after you cease to have it, should such a dismal event occur. It isn’t “your” life; the life is in Christ. He who has the son has life because he is in union with Christ.

Whether or not this theology is sound, it still demonstrates why the word “eternal” says nothing about “once saved, always saved.” That doctrine would have to be proven elsewhere, and isn’t under discussion in this present thread.

 

[Kinsman]

Kevan:

Just to clarify terms and allow the discussion to proceed unhindered, understand “eternal” to mean “without beginning or end.” The life was eternal a long time before you received it, and it will continue to be eternal a long time after you cease to have it, should such a dismal event occur. It isn’t “your” life; the life is in Christ. He who has the son has life because he is in union with Christ.

Whether or not this theology is sound, it still demonstrates why the word “eternal” says nothing about “once saved, always saved.” That doctrine would have to be proven elsewhere, and isn’t under discussion in this present thread.

The word actually means “everlasting,” the Greek word aionios. It means, in context, a life that will not end. That’s the whole point Jesus is making in John 6. The “manna” their ancestors ate in the wilderness came down from heaven, but they still died in the wilderness (Jn. 6:49). In stark contrast, Jesus Christ is the true bread that comes down out of heaven, of which the “manna” was a *type (*of Christ.) Jesus Himself, through His death on the cross for ALL our sins and subsequent bodily resurrection, gives life “everlasting” to those who believe in Him. Your thology is wrong. What Jesus is offering through faith in Him is “everlasting” life (Jn. 6:40, 47). You cannot lose what is “everlasting.” The cross of Christ makes this all possible and guarantees it. That’s why John 6 has nothing to do with the “eucharist,” but Christ Himself. He being the “true bread of LIFE.” Not received through the mouth, like “manna” in the wilderness, but by God-honoring faith. To miss this is to misunderstand the whole Gospel of John - see Jn. 3:16-18.

 

[Britta]

Kinsman:

You cannot lose what is “everlasting.” The cross of Christ makes this all possible and guarantees it.

As stated before, it is not about LOSING life everlasting, it is about separating ourselves from that eternal life through sin. This is the once saved, always saved argument that does not hold true in the face of biblical teaching. You are correct when you say you cannot lose salvation, but you can reject it through our free will to sin and go against God.

 

[Kevan]

Kinsman:

Your thology is wrong.

So is your typing.

Despite the overall interpretation of the passage (Calvinist or Arminian), the word aionos doesn’t inform the argument. You may safely argue for the spiritual understanding of the flesh and blood without taking a stand on “once saved, always saved.”

Christ is received by faith in both the Calvinist and Arminian systems, and we are kept by the power of God through faith according to both systems. They are both on the same side when compared to the Catholic sacramental system.

 

[homer]

We are asked to REMEMBER the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. If a man has the power to do the same sacrifice done by Jesus Christ than why did Jesus bother and died for us? There will be NO VALUE for the sacrifice done by Jesus from 2000 years since this same sacrifice is being done thousands of times every single day.

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:12)

Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. (Romans 6:9)

For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. (Romans 6:10)

Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. (Hebrews 7:27)

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Hebrews 9:12)

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others. (Hebrews 9:24, 25)
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14)

Now where remission of these is,** there is no more offering for sin**. (Hebrews 10:18)

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. (1 Peter 3:18)

A question to Catholics. The Catholic Catechism says that during the mass, the bread and wine will no longer be bread and wine but they will become the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. But we can’t see this miracle, we will still see the bread as bread and the wine as wine but in fact they are not anymore.
So if I put some deadly poison in the bread and wine and I took it to the mass, then by the Catholic logic I will be able to eat the bread and drink the wine because they are no longer bread and wine but the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, right!?

 

[jimmy]

Kinsman:

The word actually means “everlasting,” the Greek word aionios. It means, in context, a life that will not end. That’s the whole point Jesus is making in John 6. The “manna” their ancestors ate in the wilderness came down from heaven, but they still died in the wilderness (Jn. 6:49). In stark contrast, Jesus Christ is the true bread that comes down out of heaven, of which the “manna” was a *type (*of Christ.) Jesus Himself, through His death on the cross for ALL our sins and subsequent bodily resurrection, gives life “everlasting” to those who believe in Him. Your thology is wrong. What Jesus is offering through faith in Him is “everlasting” life (Jn. 6:40, 47). You cannot lose what is “everlasting.” The cross of Christ makes this all possible and guarantees it. That’s why John 6 has nothing to do with the “eucharist,” but Christ Himself. He being the “true bread of LIFE.” Not received through the mouth, like “manna” in the wilderness, but by God-honoring faith. To miss this is to misunderstand the whole Gospel of John - see Jn. 3:16-18.

Britta is correct you are the one that is wrong. As long as you are on earth you can lose your salvation. The idea once saved always saved is wrong. Jesus did die on the cross for all our sins but we must accept the grace that is given to us by God. We can always reject it. There are people that are very good Christians at one point in there life but later in life they lose there faith.

 

[Britta]

homer:

We are asked to REMEMBER the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

He told us not to just remember the death of the Lord, but to DO THIS in remembrance of me. “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor 11:25) He did not tell us that He is dying over and over again, a common misunderstanding. He has given Himself to us one and for all, and we are now called to continue to partake of that offering.

 

[homer]

Britta:

He told us not to just remember the death of the Lord, but to DO THIS in remembrance of me. “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor 11:25) He did not tell us that He is dying over and over again, a common misunderstanding. He has given Himself to us one and for all, and we are now called to continue to partake of that offering.

We have no role to play in his offering. Who are we to say that we continue to repeat the same offering but in an “unbloody” way. Jesus died once and that’s enough to free us from every single sin. Think about it logicaly for a minute, you are giving a human being the power to bring Jesus into a wafer! Is this what Christianity is all about? Is this how Jesus told us to worship him and his Father? To order him to come in the bread and than physically eat him ??? Or we should eat his words and live by them? We should worship Jesus in spirit. Eating bread will not give us salvation or anything because sooner or later our physical body will die and vanish … Forget everything you heard from Catholics and Protestants and think about it …

Another point I forget to mention in the previous reply is that the last supper was done way after Jesus said these words in John 6 (I guess after one year if i’m not mistaken). What do you conclude?

And finally, you didn’t answer my question in the previous reply.

 

[Britta]

homer:

We have no role to play in his offering. Who are we to say that we continue to repeat the same offering but in an “unbloody” way. Jesus died once and that’s enough to free us from every single sin. Think about it logicaly for a minute, you are giving a human being the power to bring Jesus into a wafer! Is this what Christianity is all about? Is this how Jesus told us to worship him and his Father? To order him to come in the bread and than physically eat him ??? Or we should eat his words and live by them? We should worship Jesus in spirit. Eating bread will not give us salvation or anything because sooner or later our physical body will die and vanish … Forget everything you heard from Catholics and Protestants and think about it …

It’s not logical. I agree. But it is not about logic. I had issue with it long before I became Catholic. Just because I became Catholic did not mean that I embraced all the teachings (although I do now). It was Mary (another Protestant/Catholic debate) that helped me see the Truth. It was only when I began to open my heart to Mary and pray the rosary that I “saw” things differently. I asked for help in understanding her son. My sister thinks I’m a total nut, too. But that’s okay.

We are not commanding Him to “get into a wafer” as you say, He is the one who instituted it. We are just following His teaching. He said, “for my flesh is true food and by blood is true drink,” “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” We must remain in Him.

Another point I forget to mention in the previous reply is that the last supper was done way after Jesus said these words in John 6 (I guess after one year if i’m not mistaken). What do you conclude?

If you are referring to Corinthians, then I would suggest that just because it is referred to much later in scripture does not negate the fact that they were saying Mass and partaking of the Eucharist from the start. History shows that this was the belief from the very beginning.

And finally, you didn’t answer my question in the previous reply.

I presume you are talking about the wine being poisoned question??? This is a great question as I have often wondered it myself. What we do know from 1 Corinthians is that they were getting drunk. So the effects were still there. If however, by some chance someone would choose to do something bad to the bread or wine, then I know Jesus would handle it accordingly. The Corinthians were “eating and drinking judgment against themselves.” (v.29) That is why “many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” (v.30)

Two more factors confirm the real presence:

1. Eucharistic miracles - if you ever have a chance to look into them, please do. To this day, they are unexplained events related to the Eucharist (at least to scientists and unbelievers).
2. Wiccan/Witchcraft - many satan worshippers will go into the church and remove the consecrated hosts from the Tabernacle. Why would they want it?

Then again, these are great topics for new threads.
God Bless

 

[Kinsman]

Britta:

He told us not to just remember the death of the Lord, but to DO THIS in remembrance of me. “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor 11:25) He did not tell us that He is dying over and over again, a common misunderstanding. He has given Himself to us one and for all, and we are now called to continue to partake of that offering.

Yes, Britta, He said “do this." And what was He doing? Breaking bread and drinking wine which was to be done in "remembrance” of Him. Remembering His body that was about to be offered as a sacrifice for sins and His blood shed for our complete forgiveness. There was no transforming of elements being done there. He was standing in His body and He hadn’t even been to the cross yet. This isn’t a magic show being presented here. Paul stated some 20 afterward, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). Still no transformation (i.e., transubstantiation).

 

[Britta]

Kinsman:

Yes, Britta, He said “do this." And what was He doing? Breaking bread and drinking wine which was to be done in "remembrance” of Him. Remembering His body that was about to be offered as a sacrifice for sins and His blood shed for our complete forgiveness. There was no transforming of elements being done there. He was standing in His body and He hadn’t even been to the cross yet. This isn’t a magic show being presented here. Paul stated some 20 afterward, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). Still no transformation (i.e., transubstantiation).

1 Cor does tell us to eat this bread and drink this cup but again, reading scripture in context, He tells us that the bread “IS” my body and the cup “IS” my blood. It is in fulfillment of the Passover.

We know that the Jews were required to sacrifice a lamb. Jesus came, not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He IS the lamb. What did the Jews do? They had to eat the lamb. This was done regularly so they would not forget, to remember that they were brought into the promised land. What do we now do, we must eat the lamb regularly, Jesus, to remember what He has done for us.

St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin Martyr - all wrote about the belief in the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. Read the early church fathers’ writings. With all due respect, the early church fathers’ writings are more credible to me than anything written today.

Also in Jesus’ time, to eat and drink someone’s body and blood would mean to assault that person. Obviously this would not be what Jesus wanted us to do to remember Him today.

Again, I ask, if it is only symbolic or even meaning to consume His word, then why do satan worshippers steal the consecrated hosts and use them for their ceremonies?

In summation, I would refer to your words…

Forget everything you heard from Catholics and Protestants and think about it

Then also pray. You’d be amazed what truths might just be revealed.
God Bless

 

[Greg_McPherran]

If you read John:

John 1:
The word became flesh.

I think in John 3:
That which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of spirit is spirit.

In John 6, Jesus says the flesh profits nothing. So if communion is nothing more than bread, then it is nothing more than earthly flesh and it profits nothing. Therefore for communion to be profitable it must be born of spirit. The priest at mass calls Jesus’ Body our spiritual food.

Truly our world of flesh meets God’s spirit in communion!!! Alleluia!!! Glory to God!!! Amen!!! Amen!!! This is life!!!

 

[gusano]

SpiritualSon:

Pio
The Lord’s flesh, means His Divine Good.
The Lord’s blood, means His Divine Truth.
Good is of charity and truth is of faith.Charity and faith from the Lord in man makes the church.
This a Holy Communion.

The Lord’s flesh and the bread mean …
the Lord’s blood and the wine mean …
Eating means making one’s own.
The reason why the Lord’s blood means His Divine Truth…
His flesh means in the spiritual sense the Divine Good of love, and these two are made one in the Lord.

If therefore the Word is substituted for the Lord, it is plain that it is these two which are meant by His flesh and blood.

… blood means the Divine truth of the Lord or of the Word.
For instance, from blood being called the blood of the covenant, since a covenant is a link, and linking is effected by the Lord by means of His Divine Truth.

Also:
Jesus taking the cup gave it to them, saying, This is my blood, the blood of the new covenant. Matt. 26:27,28 (Mark 14:24) (Luke 22:20).

The blood of the new covenant or testament cannot mean anything but the Word,
blood has this meaning that the Lord gave them wine, saying, ‘This is my blood’;
wine stands for Divine truth.

Truly, truly, I tell you: if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. For my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, remains in me and I in him. John 6:50-58.

… blood here means the Divine Truth of the Word,

… blood stands for the Lord’s Divine Truth,

Harry

Hi Harry,
Nice little package you have reasoned for yourself there
does it work?..
I mean, does your reasonong bring about the FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SIN ?

I don’t mean to be a "smarty pants"but as I read your post I was impressed by your use of the word “means”
or “stands for”

as I understand the word; (“means” ) …as in translation,
another way if thinking, an opinion, a concept, a substitute…

Have you actually DRANK THE BLOOD IF CHRIST?
have you indeed EATEN HIS FLESH?
I mean , taking it in your mouth, tasting it, embracing it with your lips, tongue, and palate and welcoming Him as He enters down in your belly and into your inner-most being?

I am not talking about “reading the scripture” that is good, but a lesser good.

I also notice that Jesus did not use the word;“means” at all in His discourse of The Eucharist.
he used the word;“IS”

but we could easily slip downward and quote those famous words;“Depends on your definition of what “is” IS.”

it has to be more than a meaning in the mind.
With our whole heart,
with our whole soul,
with our whole mind, and
with our whole strength.

I prefer 1 John 5:6,7 simple summary;
"Jesus Christ it is who came through water and blood-
not in water only, but in water and in blood.
It is The Spirit who testifies to this,and The Spirit is Truth .

Thus there are three that testify,The Spirit, the water and the blood-
and these three are of one accord."

The water of BAPTISM…(with belief)
The Blood of Christ at Eucharist…(with belief)
and The Spirit CONFIRMS us in our innermost being
for FAITH that leads to obedience.

if we were Angels instead of humans
we wouldn’t need Water and Blood, …
Spirit would be enough.
but since we are not…we NEED THE REAL BLOOD
for the forgiveness of our sins.
and we NEED HIS BODY to carry away our sins.

Heb. 10:26-29…"If we sin willfully after receiving the truth, there remains for us NO FURTHER SACRIFICE FOR SIN…(the sin of v;29…INSULTS THE SPIRIT ).

gusano