Literal or Symbolic?...

[david_ruiz]

To call Jesus Memorial Sacrifice as a drama which played only once as an incident in history as if a memorial of an assisinated president, grossly down plays Jesus ongoing Redemptive death and Resurrection that brings about the Redemption of Salvation for “All” humanity, until “He comes again”.

Sometimes simplicity is best .Early Christians did just fine without later ECF’s or 11th century transubstantiation ,or 16th century further explicitness as to just what is proper “eating”. The early Christians were forever in thanksgiving for the once time sacrifice, and coined the Greek term for it “euacharist” (thanksgiving) , they would be lost with your “ongoing death”. The only thing ongoing for them was and is, the “thanksgiving”…Did the later Christians in their lofty Gothic churches worship God any purer or deeper than the earliest Christians, in humble homes or even the catacombs ? I believe so it is with “communion”, and it’s evolving dogma and practice.Your baroque ornate theology is no better than the simplest beginning,which I believe was age old symbolic remembrance. Age old as Eden. They(Adam and Eve) looked forward to the “assassination” and we look backward for righteousness .That is not downplaying .That is what it is,in my opinion.

St. Paul writes of the mystery of the mystical body of Christ

2Corinthians 5:13For if we are out of our minds,* it is for God; if we are rational, it is for you.

15He indeed died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

16Consequently,* from now on we regard no one according to the flesh; even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer.

17 So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come. 18* And all this is from God,

Sorry ,I’m thick, how is that related to RP ?

 

[benedictus2]

Yes of course,God only meant it to be symbolic. What we believe is light is not really light at all,but a mere symbol of light? :whacky:

Correct. Which is probably why I am struggling to wake up in the morning. I keep waiting for the real sunshine and only get the counterfeit.

 

[benedictus2]

Day one he made light .Day four he made the sun and moon. I call day one light his “creation shop light”.

The point here is God’s word is creative. What He says is. If He says this is my body then you bet it is because God said so.

 

[cooterhein]

That would almost be true except that the text does not support it. Jesus said of the bread “This is My Body which will be given up for you”. He said of the wine : This is my blood, the blood of the new covenant. In the OT, the covenant was always fulfilled with blood (refer back to Moses sprinkling the blood of the covenant on the people). The wine at the Seder is not referred to as a symbol of the the Old Covenant. Yet here you have Jesus saying this is my blood, the blood of the New Covenant,

You probably know that the Cup Jesus used is generally held to be the Third Cup…this has something to do with textual support that maybe gives 3 out of either 3 or 4 or 5 cups, but it has a lot more to do with what the Third Cup is all about.

The third cup of wine is taken after the meal. It is the cup of redemption, which reminds us of the shed blood of the innocent Lamb which brought our redemption from Egypt. So if you’re still tracking with me, Jesus takes a cup filled with wine, but it’s not just wine you drink because you’re thirsty. It’s loaded with symbolism. It’s a giant arrow that points toward the innocent, spotless lamb. It was killed without breaking any bones. And then its blood was smeared on the doorposts of the children of Israel while they were slaves in Egypt. Why, you might ask? This was the deal: If they did this thing with the blood, the angel of the Lord would “Pass Over” that house and not kill the firstborn son. Hence, Passover. (I really don’t understand why you think this comes out of left field. Really? On this night, with these symbolic elements? The continuity here is outstanding).

At any rate…God promised to spare the firstborn children on the condition that the blood of a sacrificed lamb was smeared on the doorframe. That’s what the giant arrow is pointing toward when Jesus uses that particular symbol and starts talking about the new covenant. Speaking of which, you know what a covenant is, right? It’s an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified. The Third Cup refers to an agreement between God and the Jews to kill or not kill based on whether or not a blood sacrifice was carried out in the way that God indicated. It also refers to the redemption of God’s chosen people and describes the way in which He led them out of slavery in Egypt. It looks like Jesus is indicating that the arrow points at Him too, though, and this must have something to do with the Passover sacrifice and with leading people out of bondage and into freedom.

]I hate to say this but that is a rather stupid analysis. You are essentially saying that because the word transubstantiation was not in use then, therefore there cannot have been a transubstantiation happenning then.

No, I’m not essentially saying that. I appreciate that you’re trying to accurately summarize what I mean to communicate, but you didn’t quite make it on your first attempt. It’s not about the terms themselves, like “substance” and “accident” and “transubstantiation.” It’s about the semantic meaning, and it’s about the question of whether or not Jesus’ disciples were capable of reaching an understanding that was at all consistent with what you now have. I’m not saying it fails because the specific terms aren’t there- after all, where would that leave me with all the Solas? It’s about having (or not having) the ability to conceptualize the “externals” and the “internals” of objects in such a way that the external appearances may very well be completely different from what the things actually is, in and of itself.

This was not an ability that Jesus’ disciples had. They did not view the material world in this manner. They did not have an understanding of this division between “substance” and “accidents”- and I’m not just talking about a lack of the proper terminology. What I’m telling you is this: You describe a logical sequence that they “must” have gone through, and I’m telling you that logical sequence was impossible for them. They didn’t have the tools to do it.

That would be tantamount to saying that since the doctrine of the Trinity was not declared then and because the Jews did not believe in the Trinity therefore God is not a Trinity.

Serious question here, when I go through and clarify things in order to make it clear that I’m not “basically saying” such-and-such and that it’s not really “tantamount to” whatever awful thing you come up with…do you ever read that stuff and say “Ah, I get it now, it was wrong of me to say it was tantamount to that one thing and so forth”? Because that would approximate an appropriate response.

The Church is not some static thing that never grows, never gets to understand deeper the mysteries of her salvation.

Some things are mysterious. Others are pretty straightforward. Deepening isn’t always necessary or profitable, particularly when something is either fully grasped or partially unknowable.

Around the end of the first millenium, Berengarius already made the same argument you are making now.

No, he did not make the same argument. Berengarius denied that any material change to the elements was required to explain the RP, and according to CE, “For Berengarius the body and blood of Christ are really present in the Holy Eucharist; but this presence is an intellectual or spiritual presence. The substance of the bread and the substance of the wine remain unchanged in their nature, but by consecration they become spiritually the very body and blood of Christ.” Berengarius says this and I don’t. And I’m all over the Passover Seder and its symbolism whereas I don’t see Berengarius talking about it at all.

The only way to make sense of it is if you put this side by side with John 6.

I’ve been describing another way to make sense of it, but one minute you butcher it and the next you act like it doesn’t exist.

 

[cooterhein]

The point here is God’s word is creative. What He says is. If He says this is my body then you bet it is because God said so.

What is it exactly that is Jesus’ body? Be as specific and complete as you can, please.

 

[lyrikal]

What is it exactly that is Jesus’ body? Be as specific and complete as you can, please.

The bread.

 

[benedictus2]

You probably know that the Cup Jesus used is generally held to be the Third Cup…this has something to do with textual support that maybe gives 3 out of either 3 or 4 or 5 cups, but it has a lot more to do with what the Third Cup is all about.

The third cup of wine is taken after the meal. It is the cup of redemption, which reminds us of the shed blood of the innocent Lamb which brought our redemption from Egypt. So if you’re still tracking with me, Jesus takes a cup filled with wine, but it’s not just wine you drink because you’re thirsty. It’s loaded with symbolism. It’s a giant arrow that points toward the innocent, spotless lamb. It was killed without breaking any bones. And then its blood was smeared on the doorposts of the children of Israel while they were slaves in Egypt. Why, you might ask? This was the deal: If they did this thing with the blood, the angel of the Lord would “Pass Over” that house and not kill the firstborn son. Hence, Passover. (I really don’t understand why you think this comes out of left field. Really? On this night, with these symbolic elements? The continuity here is outstanding). At any rate…God promised to spare the firstborn children on the condition that the blood of a sacrificed lamb was smeared on the doorframe. That’s what the giant arrow is pointing toward when Jesus uses that particular symbol and starts talking about the new covenant

You are of course making the assumption that the cup of redemption symbolizes the blood of the lamb that was smeared on the door posts. Do you have any proof that the Jews at that time understood it this way? Is there anything in Judaic doctrine that confirms this? Is there anything in Judaic teaching that says that wine is symbolism for blood, particularly covenantal blood.

Also, was the blood of the lamb that was smeared on the door posts regarded as the blood of the Old Covenant? Did the Jews understand it this way?

.
Speaking of which, you know what a covenant is, right? It’s an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified. The Third Cup refers to an agreement between God and the Jews to kill or not kill based on whether or not a blood sacrifice was carried out in the way that God indicated. It also refers to the redemption of God’s chosen people and describes the way in which He led them out of slavery in Egypt. It looks like Jesus is indicating that the arrow points at Him too, though, and this must have something to do with the Passover sacrifice and with leading people out of bondage and into freedom.

Now you are rather stretching it. I don’t think Jews thought of that “kill or not kill” as a covenant. You will need to provide proof that this is regarded as the covenant, and in particular THE covenant that Jesus is superseding.

As far as I know, the blood of the covenant refers to the blood that was sprinkled on the people at the foot of Mount Sinai when God made a covenant with Israel. That was the time when God made a covenant with Israel. Moses read the law and the Jews replied that they will do all that God tells them to do.

 

[benedictus2]

No, I’m not essentially saying that. I appreciate that you’re trying to accurately summarize what I mean to communicate, but you didn’t quite make it on your first attempt. It’s not about the terms themselves, like “substance” and “accident” and “transubstantiation.” It’s about the semantic meaning,** and it’s about the question of whether or not Jesus’ disciples were capable of reaching an understanding that was at all consistent with what you now have.** I’m not saying it fails because the specific terms aren’t there- after all, where would that leave me with all the Solas? It’s about having (or not having) the ability to conceptualize the “externals” and the “internals” of objects in such a way that the external appearances may very well be completely different from what the things actually is, in and of itself.

Yes, cooter you are essentially saying that.

I have highlighted the relevant point to show you why it is so.

You are basically saying that because Jesus’s disciples could not have understood transubstantiation, then there could not have been transubstantiation happening during institution of the Eucharist.

Since when has the reality of something supernatural happening been dependent on whether the audience can grasp it or not?

Whether the disciples understood or not what was happening has no bearing on what was actually taking place (transubstantiation). Their understanding does not determine objective reality.

This was not an ability that Jesus’ disciples had. They did not view the material world in this manner. They did not have an understanding of this division between “substance” and “accidents”- and I’m not just talking about a lack of the proper terminology. What I’m telling you is this: You describe a logical sequence that they “must” have gone through, and I’m telling you that logical sequence was impossible for them. They didn’t have the tools to do it.

Again, so what? Whether they grasped it or not does not mean that it did not take place. The disciples did not GET Jesus then. That is a simple fact. Does that mean that because they did not understand Jesus then, therefore the post and pre resurrection Jesus must not be the same?

Serious question here, when I go through and clarify things in order to make it clear that I’m not “basically saying” such-and-such and that it’s not really “tantamount to” whatever awful thing you come up with…do you ever read that stuff and say “Ah, I get it now, it was wrong of me to say it was tantamount to that one thing and so forth”? Because that would approximate an appropriate response.

But it is tantamount to. If one uses your line of reasoning then one can conclude that about the Trinity.

Some things are mysterious. Others are pretty straightforward. Deepening isn’t always necessary or profitable, particularly when something is either fully grasped or partially unknowable.

You are assuming that apostles fully grasped what Jesus was doing or saying. Then you are the only one saying that. For one thing, you will not find anything in scripture that confirms that your understanding is HOW the disciples understood it too. Quite the opposite.
No, he did not make the same argument. Berengarius denied that any material change to the elements was required to explain the RP, and according to CE, “For Berengarius the body and blood of Christ are really present in the Holy Eucharist; but this presence is an intellectual or spiritual presence. The substance of the bread and the substance of the wine remain unchanged in their nature, but by consecration they become spiritually the very body and blood of Christ.” Berengarius says this and I don’t. And I’m all over the Passover Seder and its symbolism whereas I don’t see Berengarius talking about it at all.
I suppose there is a difference. Berangarius says it is spiritual, you say there is not even spiritual but purely symbolic.

Can you tell me why we would eat and drink condemnation if it was merely a symbol?

I’ve been describing another way to make sense of it, but one minute you butcher it and the next you act like it doesn’t exist.

Do you realize that by saying I butchered it means that your analysis renders itself to butchering or I would not have been able to butcher it at all?

As for acting like it doesn’t exist, how have I done that?

 

[rbarcia]

What’s He on about then? Why say it at all? Were the Jews so lacking in symbolism He needed to give them another two?

Not sure what you are asking?

 

[benedictus2]

I’m not primarily focused on the word “is,” though. I’m actually more focused on the word “this.” What is it, exactly, that “is” Jesus’ body? Well, it’s bread, that’s obvious. But it’s not just bread for eating, it’s not ordinary bread that nourishes you and gives you calories and energy. It’s a specific type of bread that’s used in specific ways on just one night out of the year. The bread is a symbol, and when I say “the bread is a symbol,” please understand what I mean by that: I’m saying the matzo was a symbol from the very beginning of the Last Supper. It’s not a cracker that you snack on. It is already loaded with centuries of religious symbolism going into this particular passover.

So the appropriate starting point is not one in which Jesus equates His body with a piece of food, and His blood with something that you drink because you’re thirsty and it’s meal-time. (Time for some yum-yums! No, it’s actually not at all random like that). He’s equating His body and blood with symbols. These symbols carry a ton of meaning with them, and it goes so far beyond the fact that they are edible and can nourish you. These aren’t little insignificant symbols either- they’re absolutely central to the entire religious identity of Judaism. Matter of fact, their symbolic significance is so great that their edible quality is fairly insignificant by comparison.

These symbols mean something. They are attached (symbolically) to really important things having to do with God, His chosen people, and the ways in which He’s delivered and redeemed them throughout their history.

Do you realize that you’ve gone on and on and on about the matzo being a symbol and how it is laden with symbolism but you haven’t exactly said what this symbol is supposed to symbolize?

This is what Jesus equates with His body and blood.

And what is that? What did Jesus equate with His body and blood? What is the Matzo a symbol of ?

Now it seems you are saying that the matzo which used to be a symbol of something is now a symbol of His body which is supposed to be a symbol of the symbol of the matzo.

Not exactly the symbols themselves- they’re really important, just as they continue to be extremely important to Christians who continue to treat them as symbols. But they are types, and as such, they point to other things. It’s these other things that Jesus equates with Himself. The symbols are like arrows. When Jesus uses them in the way that He did, He basically took a couple of enormous arrows that were pointing at some really important things and indicated that they point at Him, too. You can’t just look at the arrow and ask “How can this thing be equated with Jesus?” You need to look at where the arrows are pointing to begin with. Those things are relevant, and I don’t think you’re taking them into consideration at all.

And where does the arrow from the Matzo point exactly?

Once the original purpose of the arrows is taken into consideration, you can observe a few things that you may not have observed before. The yeastless matzo is an arrow that points toward things that are sinless, things that are humble, things that are related to freeing people from bondage. (Among other things). Then Jesus takes this giant arrow and points it at Himself. This is not the same as saying “Look at me, I am a giant arrow.” What He’s doing is equating Himself with some of the other things that the giant arrow is pointing at.

So the yeastless Matzo points to Jesus because yeastless means sinless? You seem to have missed the bit about “given up for you”. How is the Matzo given up?

If it were just bread for eating and just wine for drinking, I’d probably have to get on board with you in some way- at least to the extent of affirming the RP. But because Jesus is dealing with symbols and not just food, I’m afraid I have to make their symbolic meanings my first priority. So if you can take one more look at the oft-repeated phrase, keeping in mind that “This” indicates something that’s absolutely dripping with symbolic meaning:

“THIS is my body. You see what “this” is? It’s an arrow. It points to something. That is what’s being equated with Jesus’ body.”

I’m afraid you have not quite made your case. I am sure you will accuse me of butchering this one as well.

And no, if it was just bread for eating and wine for drinking then** I** would have to get on board with you. But because it ceases to be just bread and wine then I am staying put and refuse to board.

You made an almost reasonable case for the symbolism of the bread of wine for the Jews but the problem is that you made a major assumption that Jesus’s intent was symbolic as well. THAT is one major flaw because the text does not support this. Furthermore, the early Church’s understanding does not support this either.

So yes, THIS refers to the bread (which carries symbolism for the Jews if you like) but which by the power of God’s word becomes (IS now) Christ’s body. So THIS IS His Body given up for us.

 

[benedictus2]

Not sure what you are asking?

You said the bread and wine were symbols. But why do this? If you read the gospels there is no explanation at all for why He would say “This is my body…eat, my blood …drink.”. One cannot make sense of this sudden departure from Seder rite.

 

[benedictus2]

I agree. Kindly take a look at post 74 on page 5 of these responses where the OP makes this initial comment: “Nowhere is the Bible does Jesus say, “This is the symbol of my Body”…or “what is in the cup is the symbol of my Blood.” The word “symbol” appears nowhere in the text.” Well, I wasn’t making a direct quote, was I? I was saying something about the meaning of the text, and if I limited myself to words that are in the text, I wouldn’t be doing that anymore- I’d just be making direct quotes with no explanation, and someone would come along and (rightly) criticize me for quoting Scripture with no explanation of my reason for doing so. What GP does here is wrongly criticize me for doing what needs to be done and doing so in the way that it’s always done- whether you’re talking about the Last Supper or the nature of God or the nature of Christ or anything else. I respond to this in post 78 by saying it’s a worthless argument that is immediately discarded every time it’s brought up. Based on your actions in the post I’m currently replying to, I’d say you just helped me make that point. AntalKalnoky appears to think it’s a great argument, though, and that it has something to do with the numerical size of the CC. Maybe you can work with her on that. (I don’t actually know that she’s a her; I’m guessing. Apologies if that’s wrong).

Okay, I get what you mean. I checked your post prior to GPs and you explained that it was symbolic. I guess my comment on that would be that even though you made an explanation of the symbolism in the OT, that Jesus’s intent was also symbolic was only an assumption on your part. When we make an analysis, firstly the analysis must be supported by the text. It is good to show how Jesus is the fulfillment of the Torah and Judaic belief but stating that does not automatically equate to “eucharist is symbolic”

Some things are mysterious, and they need further exploration. Other things were understood by the original audience in their entirety, and it behooves us to understand these things as they understood those things.

Two different comments at opposing tangents:

First: if it behooves us to understand it how the original audience understood it, well the orignal audice at the discourse on the bread of life understood it alright. Which is why they left.

Second. If we always take things how the original audience understood it, then since the Jews were part of the audience, we can conclude all of the following 1) Jesus is not the Messiah 2) Jesus is a rubble rouser 3) Jesus is a blasphemer

What Jesus communicated to His disciples at the Last Supper was understood by His disciples in a way that was consistent with what He wished to communicate to them, and as such, this is one of the things where we need to eschew a deepening or development in ways that are inconsistent with what He said and what they heard. Instead, we need to do our best to understand Jesus as they understood Him and that will give us the appropriate result.

And there is your persistent recurring error. You ASSUME that you know how the disciples understood it. Where in the text does it say that they understood it symbolically? Quite the contrary. Those who left were also His disciples. But they left because they knew exactly what He was saying and they couldn’t stomach it.

As for the apostles, they understood it the same way those who left understood it. The only difference is that they believed in Him. He has the words of eternal life. And it is precisely by the power of His words that we are able to eat the bread that gives eternal life.

Again, other things like the nature of God or the exact manner in which Jesus is both God and man…those are mysterious, and they’re still quite a bit beyond our understanding. But when Jesus institutes a paschal tradition, the correct meaning is not the anachronistic one that is inconsistent with Jesus’ original intent and the original understanding of the disciples.

Again, how do you know that for a fact? As I have pointed out before, that the disciples had not concept of transubstantiation does not mean that there is no such thing as transubstantiation. Knowledge does not determine reality. So you are quite wrong, it is not case of imposing an anachronism on the text.

What you’re looking for is the only alternative to cannibalism that Jesus’ disciples could have possibly had in mind. That’s the one you should have in mind as well, especially when you consider the meaning of anamnesis- considering yourself as if you were one of His disciples is a part of that process.

Considering myself as one of His disciples would be to impose an anachronistic understanding on His disciples. And that is probably why you think it is symbolic. You are imposing your twentieth century understanding on 1st century Jews and think that because you think that way then that must be how they thought. But history proves you wrong, because the Church during the time of the apostles already believed in the Real Presence. Those who learned FROM the apostles believed it to be the Body and Blood of Christ. Where could they have got that understanding BUT from the apostles?

As long as you’re doing that, you can’t be thinking about the Catholic mass, even in the most general terms. It’s not a matter of describing the same thing with words that came into use later on- it’s a matter of describing something that’s so far off base that it doesn’t come close to the disciples’ mindset in any way.

The disciples mindset which you do not know about because you are intent on superimposing on them your own.

 

[cooterhein]

The bread.

More specific, please. Sandwich bread? Snack food? Or a religious symbol used for a particular purpose on one specific night of the year?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

david ruiz;8364919]Sometimes simplicity is best .Early Christians did just fine without later ECF’s or 11th century transubstantiation ,or 16th century further explicitness as to just what is proper “eating”. The early Christians were forever in thanksgiving for the once time sacrifice, and coined the Greek term for it “euacharist” (thanksgiving) , they would be lost with your “ongoing death”. The only thing ongoing for them was and is, the “thanksgiving”…

david it is one thing to misinterpret God’s Word to your own interpretations, that is between you and God when you add or subtract from His Word. But to add your own content and interpretation to my commentary is offending. Where do you get “YOUR ON GOING DEATH” from? This is your own interpretation. The Word I used as well as “Fulton Sheen” is “Redemptive death”. Your post reveals a very lost understanding of Catholicism and a practice you reveal of Catholicism does not exist as per your posts and interpretations.

Please do not add your interpretations to change the meanings of my posts. What the early Christians did is still practiced unchanged in the Catholic Church. IF you believe the Early 'Christians were just fine, why are you not practicing Christianity like them, in the True presence of Jesus? and have changed to believe in “symbolic Jesus”? as per your own belief and posts.

Your baroque ornate theology is no better than the simplest beginning,which I believe was age old symbolic remembrance. Age old as Eden. They(Adam and Eve) looked forward to the “assassination” and we look backward for righteousness .That is not downplaying .That is what it is,in my opinion.

For your information my commentary is never my own “theology”, as you inspire yourself to be of your own opinion of late theology. I assure you, my commentary is supported by “Fulton Sheen” and many other great minds of Christian antiquity who refute any type of symbolic Jesus. What you believe and what has been handed down these past 2000 years from Jesus are not the same as you interpret to believe today and never will be.

I would love to share and reveal my Catholic faith to you, if you have ears to hear and eyes to see. You have revealed to me, that the latter you never possessed as a Catholic, but that is your opinion.

St.Paul reveals His Catholic faith in the true presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist in both letters to the Corinthians. A mystery is not revealed to closed ears and closed hearts, only the carnal mind views the revealed mysteries of God, not by faith, but from what the carnal mind can only hear and see, from these “belief and faith” is lacking, if one subcribes to a symbolic Jesus in His Eucharist.

As Jesus revealed to those who denied His true presence in His Eucharist from John 6; "It is the Spirit that gives life, while the “flesh availeth nothing”.

I am not looking to remove any speck from your eye, I am only humbling asking you not to add your misunderstandings to my commentaries, and that there is a difference between, believing, faith and understanding the revealed mysteries of God.

You have revealed from your post’s on the RP is lacking in all three, when you remove the mystery for a carnal grasping of the Eucharist to be a symbolic Jesus. Take your symbolic Jesus to the Eastern Orthodox Church’s as you have mentioned, you will find yourself in opposition to this Apostolic Catholic Faith of the RP.

The complexity of your arguments of the RP in the Eucharist, lay grounded on the carnal level and never reveals faith, only a belief that carnal man can only grasp. Faith begins by hearing and hearing the Word of God, not man’s carnal interpretations of what God has revealed. “Take eat all of you, this is my body”, “Take and drink all of you, this is my blood”.

Peace be with you

 

[david_ruiz]

The point here is God’s word is creative. What He says is. If He says this is my body then you bet it is because God said so.

Thank you benedictus 2. But it seems that right from the get go "what it is " is not that easy .Genesis for example, what was the light in day one ,given He did not create our sun and moon till day four ? Indeed ,the spirit must interpret the “what it is”.

 

[david_ruiz]

**The complexity of your arguments of the RP in the Eucharist, lay grounded on the carnal level and never reveals faith, ** It was the carnal, empty faithed that took eating literally in John 6.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It was the carnal, empty faithed that took eating literally in John 6.

Ahhh, now your catching on…and what happened after this false understanding? Answer; John 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”…66 “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went with him.” Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” david?

“it is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail”. It is the Word of God in the Holy Spirit that brings those things into existence which did not exist…“This is my body, This is my blood”. These mysteries are ordered by the Word of God, not david or man.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the Word of God, so that what is visible (bread and wine) came into being through the invisible" (body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ present in His Eucharist).

Paranthesis mine

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It was the carnal, empty faithed that took eating literally in John 6.

Ahhh, now your catching on…and what happened after this false understanding? Answer; John 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”…66 “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went with him.” Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” david?

“it is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail”. It is the Word of God in the Holy Spirit that brings those things into existence which did not exist…“This is my body, This is my blood”. These mysteries are ordered by the Word of God, not david or man.

Hebrews 11:3** By faith **we understand that the universe was ordered by the Word of God, so that what is visible (bread and wine) came into being through the invisible" (WORD OF GOD MADE FLESH) (body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ present in His Eucharist). When and where does your faith begin by order of the Word of God?

Paranthesis mine

Can you give an example? If you apply this biblical faith to creation? we can agree then; and it is not difficult to believe when God speaks His Word those things into existence which did not exist before. Example God spoke to the dust and the water and they became man. Faith in God is not difficult. Only when we refuse to believe Jesus Word, when we walk away from faith in Jesus, “as a result of this (lack of faith in Jesus Christ) many of His disciples returned to their former way of life” Jn.6:66

 

[JonNC]

=david ruiz;8364766]Howdy.First not sure of what words you mean. But the reason for the Last Supper and it’s comemmorization I thought was literally to commemorate His sacrifice for us .Even as a Catholic I did not participate to have forgiveness of sins , because after all ,one needed to be clean to participate in the first place (thru Confession). I think I participated to receive Him ,in this special sacramental way .Lastly, perhaps it was to commemorate his sacrifice.Actually now that I think of it, is that right , should the commemoration not be supreme ?

In remembrance of Him. Correct. What do we do to remember or commemorate Him? He tells us: Take and eat, this is My body." If it is, as we agree a commemoration, there is something thatwe do to commemorate - eat and drink. Eat and drink what? He tells us His body and blood.

Did the idea of receiving Him, and the miracle of consecration actually detract from the actual transporting myself to the scene of the original sacrifice ? I am wondering if calling His age old symbolism “mere and only” is actually what the enemy of Calvary would like .What is more important , the receiving ? The consecration ? Or that Jesus came as man and hung on a tree for our sins (and that we even have the ability , and stillness , to “see” that) ? I am sorry ,but you just talked me into holding up the remembrance, as higher than all the eating symbolic or otherwise. I know you will say it isn’t either or ,and that you can do all three perfectly and equally fine (consecrating ,receiving and remembering) ,but I can not, and did not as a Catholic.I personally find the theology quite distracting. Just do it . Break bread , repeat the Words, and give thanks - hence, let us eucharist.

And you are right. I find the theology inviting and reassuring, that He gave on the tree His body and blood, then by His words made them available for us to eat and drink. For me, not a distraction at all.

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Just do it . Break bread , repeat the Words, experience the mystery and give thanks - hence, let us eucharist.
Jon

 

[AntalKalnoky]

“Eat my Flesh, Drink my Blood” is The REAL PRESENCE, FELT, after Consecration By Christ, Through the Priest. But one has to be “Worthy”: Cathlolic Free of Mortal Sin; Since the Apostles Lived the Remembrance as Christ Authorized, with Apostolic Powers Prists to Pope Have.