Why didn't Jesus do the same thing in John 6...

[guanophore]

Translated correctly means the correct meaning is understood.

Since the context of the NT is the Catholic Church, it cannot be properly understood outside of the is context.

 There are lots of different meanings pulled from the bible that conflict

I am glad that you realize this. It is a good start.

 

[JonNC]

This is true, Jon. But as far as the Catholics are concerned, are they really Catholics, since they are not in agreement with the Church? There are many “cafeteria Catholics”, but are they truly Catholic?

Hi rainman,
I’m not sure I would characterize Catholics or Lutherans who view transubstantiation and sacramental union as divergent as “cafeteria _____”. And I don’t think that folks like me that view the two human expressions of the RP as are “cafeteria ______”.

I’m just saying that recent discussions between Catholic and Lutheran theologians have led me to believe that, in fact, they both speak to the reality that mere bread and wine are changed into the true and substantial body and blood, and are therefore not divergent. Of our disagreements, this seems one of those that should be more easily overcome.

Jon

 

[Radical]

Hey Radical thanks for sticking around.

pleasure

I will try really hard to see things from your perspective.

excellent

I believe that all was made crystal clear to the apostles on Pentecost, who then proceeded, via the guidance of the HS, to share those truths with everyone.

agreed…we just don’t agree on what was made clear

I too wonder why Jesus Christ on that particular day, did not clarify that he was talking about some miraculous manner of non-cannibalistic nature. I agree with you regarding that. My point is: why didn’t Jesus simply clarify (as He does at other times) - and tell them that He was merely speaking in metaphor?

Please bear in mind that Jesus didn’t always clarify his metaphors. In John 2 he did not explain that he was talking about his death and resurrection when he claimed that he could raise the temple in 3 days. Nor did he clarify his meaning when a variation of his claim was presented at his trial. Again, it was the case that the disciples managed to figure it out after his death and resurrection.

It’s just a real simple question without any double standard.

I think the double standard is obvious…you readily admit this:

Why Jesus did not say, that day, “Wait, I am talking about a miraculous manner of eating that isn’t cannibalistic,” I do not know.

You are content with having no answer to explain why he didn’t explain your understanding of what he meant, but apparently you think it is unfathomable that he wouldn’t explain my understanding of what he meant.

If Jesus’ church, from Pentecost on, had been teaching the symbolic interpretation then, without doubt I would agree with you, but that is not the case.

and if the Church had been teaching a real bodily presence from Pentecost on, it would be hard to explain away the apostles’ adherence to such a doctrine…but such is not the case.

I should see the early church leaders believing and teaching what you believe regarding the Eucharist if in fact you are correct. The idea that the CC and EOC were teaching heretically for 1500 years, until Calvin and company came along and saved the day is silly.

your representation of history is sadly distorted

Jesus said: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, but first they must know the truth and willfully reject the truth.

I am not familiar with Christ saying the bold bit, but in any event no one that day rejected a non-cannibalistic manner of eating human flesh b/c such an usual idea was never presented by Christ. Not then, not ever.

All Jesus had to do was say something like: I am speaking symbolically, please don’t leave, and then if they left we would know that the Father did not draw them to Himself.

again to demonstrate your double standard I’ll simply use your own words:

All Jesus had to do was say something like: I am not speaking of cannibalism, please don’t leave, and then if they left we would know that the Father did not draw them to Himself

 

[Radical]

He did, through His church, forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth. If he didn’t, no one in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries would have embraced the teachings of the present day CC, but I can find no one in the early church that disbelieved this notion. No one in the early church agrees with you.

we already been over this here where I gave you this to chew on:

*First, as late as the start of the 5th century we find that Augustine of Hippo did not hold to a real bodily presence. The understanding that Augustine did not advocate a real bodily presence (RBP) is derived from the body of his work. It is not an unusual conclusion of biographers of Augustine.

F. van der Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, wrote:

It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.

In Papal Sin G. Wills (another biographer of Augustine) approvingly cites van der Meer on that point and continues by pointing out that Berrouard thought he could establish that one text in Augustine affirmed a real presence. Wills noted that Kilmartin demonstrated how filmsy Berrouard’s case was.

Edward Kilmartin S.J. is a scholar who viewed the Antiochene school as a main source of the somatic real presence (influencing both Ambrose and Hillary). He contrasted this with Augustine, whose “Neoplatonic theology prevented him from interpreting the sacraments as more than signs pointing to a spiritual reality.”*

When we have your version of history and the version from experts…I’ll go with the experts that understand that the notion of a somatic real presence grew out of Antioch and wasn’t there form the start.

Did the holy spirit misguide Jesus’ early church as early as the 1st and 2nd century?

No the Spirit doesn’t misguide…but people do ignore his leading and do manufacture doctrines

That is because Jesus said:
"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
And that occurred on Pentecost - right?

The Spirit coming? Yes.

So, Jesus, knowing that they were not called by the Father, deprived them of truth? I am trying to see things from your perspective, but that makes no sense to me. Jesus would have at least given them a fighting chance by saying something like, I am only speaking in metaphor, if in fact that was what he meant.
Your answer is, b/c (as the author of John makes clear) those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back, and again, that makes no sense to me. Jesus, who is a loving God, would have still revealed to them the truth, if in fact he was speaking in metaphor.

So if you don’t possess a double standard, why don’t we also see these complaints from you:
So, Jesus, knowing that they were not called by the Father, deprived them of truth?..but that makes no sense to me. Jesus would have at least given them a fighting chance by saying something like, I am speaking of a miraculous non-cannibalistic manner of eating, if in fact that was what he meant…or … Jesus, who is a loving God, would have still revealed to them the truth, if in fact he was speaking of a miraculous non-cannibalistic manner of eating.

I cannot adopt your answer because your answer implies that Jesus would deprive the grumblers of truth, regarding the metaphor, and I can’t believe He would do that - sorry.

but you aren’t terribly troubled that Jesus would deprive the grumblers of truth, regarding the miraculous manner of eating, and you can believe He would do just that

Again, I don’t know why Jesus didn’t offer clarification of the miraculous manner of eating, on that particular day?

you don’t like what my answer, but having no answer (as to why Jesus didn’t explain your understanding) is still acceptable…I wouldn’t know what else to call it than a double standard.

Radical, show me an example of this teaching dividing Christianity, prior to the 16th century reformation? Even most of the reformers believed in the true presence…

I would direct you to Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Eusebius and Augustine…but again, one has to go into more depth than the copy and paste analysis that I have seen you produce in the past…and the case for the likes of Ignatius, Irenaeus and Martyr (holding to a real somatic presence) isn’t as strong as you think.

 

[flyonthewall]

Since the context of the NT is the Catholic Church, it cannot be properly understood outside of the is context.

Well, therein lies our differences, but I will grant you the Catholic context cannot be understood outside of the Catholic church.

I am glad that you realize this. It is a good start.

Then would you agree that the scriptures are correct as far as they are translated correctly? That is a good start indeed.

 

[joe370]

Hey Radical…

agreed… we just don’t agree on what was made clear

I don’t have the authority to definitively say one way or the other, so, ultimately, it really doesn’t matter if I am right or wrong. Radical, who does have the authority to resolve this issue for us? Clearly the bible, as our final authority, is not working.

I too wonder why Jesus Christ on that particular day, did not clarify that he was talking about some miraculous manner of non-cannibalistic nature. I agree with you regarding that. My point is: why didn’t Jesus simply clarify (as He does at other times) - and tell them that He was merely speaking in metaphor?

Please bear in mind that Jesus didn’t always clarify his metaphors. In John 2 he did not explain that he was talking about his death and resurrection when he claimed that he could raise the temple in 3 days. Nor did he clarify his meaning when a variation of his claim was presented at his trial. Again, it was the case that the disciples managed to figure it out after his I believe that all was made crystal clear to the apostles on Pentecost, who then proceeded, via the guidance of the HS, to share those truths with everyone

.

So, it’s your contention that the apostles figured it out after Jesus’ death and resurrection thanks to the holy spirit, and what they determined was that Jesus was speaking in metaphor? Was this interpretation the accepted interpretation from the time of Pentecost until the CC sprang up and started teaching differently?

Why Jesus did not say, that day, “Wait, I am talking about a miraculous manner of eating that isn’t cannibalistic,” I do not know.

You are content with having no answer to explain why he didn’t explain your understanding of what he meant, but apparently you think it is unfathomable that he wouldn’t explain my understanding of what he meant.

I am content for the simple fact that all was cleared up on that fateful day - Pentecost.

No, it’s not unfathomable that he would explain your understanding of what he meant. If your explanation of what Jesus meant is accurate, then it was, no doubt, universally accepted/believed from the outset. Was it?

 

[joe370]

Radical…

I should see the early church leaders believing and teaching what you believe regarding the Eucharist if in fact you are correct. The idea that the CC and EOC were teaching heretically for 1500 years, until Calvin and company came along and saved the day is silly.

your representation of history is sadly distorted

Prove me wrong and I will admit that my representation of history is sadly distorted?

Jesus said: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, but first they must know the truth and willfully reject the truth.

I am not familiar with Christ saying the bold bit, but in any event no one that day rejected a non-cannibalistic manner of eating human flesh b/c such an usual idea was never presented by Christ. Not then, not ever[/COL
OR].

So you don’t believe that one should know truth before one can willfully reject said truth?

They rejected a cannibalistic manner of eating human flesh, and that is why they walked away. They didn’t walk away because they thought Jesus was speaking in metaphor. They didn’t follow Jesus and then decide to walk away because they were offended by Jesus’ use of a metaphor. If you want to believe that, then that is certainly cool with me.

All Jesus had to do was say something like: I am speaking symbolically, please don’t leave, and then if they left we would know that the Father did not draw them to Himself.
again to demonstrate your double standard I’ll simply use your own words:

All Jesus had to do was say something like: I am not speaking of cannibalism, please don’t leave, and then if they left we would know that the Father did not draw them to Himself

He did not use those exact words, however, he did say:

"Does this offend you?

Yup…

What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

Well, then it looks like we won’t be snacking on your femur. LOL…

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life

His words are spiritual, not carnal. I agree with you regarding the fact that Jesus could have been a tad more perspicuous if he was speaking in metaphor or if he was speaking literally. I do not agree that the apostles continued to follow Jesus, all the while, believing that he was speaking in metaphor. Why would Jesus say to his apostles the following, if in fact they were believing that Jesus’ words were symbolic:

“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

So, it’s not logical to assume that Jesus would have told them that he was speaking symbolically, (if in fact he was) - in order to keep His disciples from walking away from this metaphorical teaching?

Before you ask the same question I will say: I do believe that it would have been logical for Jesus to expound a tad more regarding their cannibalistic interpretation, in order to keep His disciples from walking away, but he did not, and who am I to question God…

 

[joe370]

flyonthewall

;7149880]Well, therein lies our differences, but I will grant you the Catholic context cannot be understood outside of the Catholic church.

The context made since to me when I was outside the CC, as is the case for many who were once, outside the CC.

Then would you agree that the scriptures are correct as far as they are translated correctly? That is a good start indeed.

Flyonthewall, I know that I was not given the final authority, by God, to translate scripture, outside His church. I doubt that you believe that you were given the final authority to translate scripture either. Who does have the final authority to translate/interpret sacred scripture???

 

[joe370]

flyonthewall;7149408]Their faith was based on Christ.

Of course.

Jesus had already told them to them it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.

Okay…

They had faith that He would make it known to them, or that they would understand in time.

Agreed…Post Pentecost…

There is evidence that they already understood in verses 68 & 69

Where is the evidence that the apostles believed that Jesus was speaking in parable or in metaphor? This simply states that Jesus has the words of eternal life.

*“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” *

 

[joe370]

Hey Radical…

First, as late as the start of the 5th century we find that Augustine of Hippo did not hold to a real bodily presence. The understanding that Augustine did not advocate a real bodily presence (RBP) is derived from the body of his work. It is not an unusual conclusion of biographers of Augustine.

Perhaps you can tell me why Augustine said the following:

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands.”

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

I guess all of these folks (some of which were disciples of the apostles) - that lived well before Augustine were heretics:

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

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]).

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Hippolytus

"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper " (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).*

 

[joe370]

Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Council of Nicaea I

“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).*

 

[joe370]

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Ambrose of Milan

“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

…

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

Council of Ephesus

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

 

[joe370]

F. van der Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, wrote:

It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.

In Papal Sin G. Wills (another biographer of Augustine) approvingly cites van der Meer on that point and continues by pointing out that Berrouard thought he could establish that one text in Augustine affirmed a real presence. Wills noted that Kilmartin demonstrated how filmsy Berrouard’s case was.

Edward Kilmartin S.J. is a scholar who viewed the Antiochene school as a main source of the somatic real presence (influencing both Ambrose and Hillary). He contrasted this with Augustine, whose “Neoplatonic theology prevented him from interpreting the sacraments as more than signs pointing to a spiritual reality.”

When we have your version of history and the version from experts…I’ll go with the experts that understand that the notion of a somatic real presence grew out of Antioch and wasn’t there form the start.

I could throw some scholars at you, that have polar opposite views, but this proves nothing. I have provided you with a gaggle of early church leaders that disagree with your select scholars but I am sure that means nothing to you.

 

[joe370]

I cannot adopt your answer because your answer implies that Jesus would deprive the grumblers of truth, regarding the metaphor, and I can’t believe He would do that - sorry.

but you aren’t terribly troubled that Jesus would deprive the grumblers of truth, regarding the miraculous manner of eating, and you can believe He would do just that

Radical, how do you know that those same grumbling disciples, who walked away that day, did not come to believe via the teachings of the early church, after they found out that Jesus rose from the dead and was in fact God?

 

[joe370]

Radical, show me an example of this teaching dividing Christianity, prior to the 16th century reformation? Even most of the reformers believed in the true presence…
I would direct you to Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Eusebius and Augustine…but again, one has to go into more depth than the copy and paste analysis that I have seen you produce in the past…and the case for the likes of Ignatius, Irenaeus and Martyr (holding to a real somatic presence) isn’t as strong as you think.

If exact quotes from these folks, which I have provided, will not suffice, then what would?

Tertullian actually say that the flesh feeds on [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God.

Origen says: there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian says: All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

How is violence done to Jesus’ body and blood if the bread and wine are nothing more than mere bread and wine?

Clement of Alexandria says: “’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

 

[joe370]

Flyonthewall, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostles. Irenaeus, Justin, Clement, and Tertullian would be second generation Fathers. Origen and Cyprian would be third generation Fathers. These are among the earliest witnesses we have to the faith as it was handed down from the Apostles. Therefore, in areas where they all have a general agreement their witness is significant, along with the others that came after them - correct?

If they believed what the present day CC believes regarding the Eucharist, then shouldn’t we believe?

 

[joe370]

Radical, do you disagree with protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly on the matter:

• “Ignatius roundly declares that…the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body…Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity…”

"Hippolytus speaks of 'the body and the blood' through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as 'the Lord's body.' The converted pagan, he remarks, 'feeds on the richness of the Lord's body, that is, on the Eucharist.' The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist 'the flesh feeds upon Christ's body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.' Clearly his assumption is that the Savior's body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian's attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, 'do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.' Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally." *

 

[guanophore]

Please bear in mind that Jesus didn’t always clarify his metaphors. In John 2 he did not explain that he was talking about his death and resurrection when he claimed that he could raise the temple in 3 days. Nor did he clarify his meaning when a variation of his claim was presented at his trial. Again, it was the case that the disciples managed to figure it out after his death and resurrection.

I agree that certain things did not become clear to them until later, but Jesus had a different policy with His Apostles than He did with the public at large, and the Jewish authorities.

Mark 4:33-34

33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it;

34 and without a parable spake he not unto them:** but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things.**

You are content with having no answer to explain why he didn’t explain your understanding of what he meant, but apparently you think it is unfathomable that he wouldn’t explain my understanding of what he meant.

We are content with the fact that He explained all things privately to His Apostles, and they committed this to the Church, where it was preserved infallibly by the One who promised to guide the Church into All Truth.

and if the Church had been teaching a real bodily presence from Pentecost on, it would be hard to explain away the apostles’ adherence to such a doctrine…but such is not the case.

It seems to me that it has always been quite simple to spin up heresies. When I read the NT and the Fathers, I see no small amount of them apparently quite easily concocted.’

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

how is it that Ignatius, a bishop ordained by the Apostle himself, missed the mark on this point?

How was it that Jesus’ ability to guide the Church into "all Truth’ failed at the first generation? He must have come down with the flu…Poor Jesus! He just was unable to keep His Word!

your representation of history is sadly distorted

I am quite certain it appears distorted from your point of view. You are within an ecclesiastical tradition that has been separated from what the Apostles believed and taught for 500 + years. Naturally the faith of the Apostles has become practically unrecognizable.

I am not familiar with Christ saying the bold bit, but in any event no one that day rejected a non-cannibalistic manner of eating human flesh b/c such an usual idea was never presented by Christ. Not then, not ever.

It seems that they understood HIm to mean cannabilism. This would have been a gross religious profanation for them.

again to demonstrate your double standard I’ll simply use your own words:

All Jesus had to do was say something like: I am not speaking of cannibalism, please don’t leave, and then if they left we would know that the Father did not draw them to Himself

Yet, He did not try to talk them into coming back, or indicate that they did not understand. They got it, just the way He meant it. He was talking about eating/chewing/gnawing His flesh,a nd drinking His blood. They were scandalized.

 

[joe370]

Radical, there is the possibility that:

 I am wrong.

 That the Fathers were unanimously in error.

 That the truth about the Eucharist was made known at the beginning but then all records of this position were destroyed.

 That a group of "true Christians" preserved the symbolic protestant/Evangelical - reformed interpretation underground hounded and persecuted by the Catholic Church starting around Constantine’s time and continuing unabated until the sixteenth century when this "true Church" threw off the "shackles" of Catholicism and reasserted the "pure biblical symbolic Evangelical - reformed interpretation" once again for all to see through the "great reformers" Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin.

Yes these are possible but how probable is it really that:

 The Catholic Church persecuted a small group of "true Christians" and destroyed every trace of their existence while the Gnostics, Arians, Monophysites, Waldenses, and every other group that the Catholic Church opposed *(which generally existed for a few centuries at most and then vanished)* left behind writings and evidences of their beliefs but this little group (which was the "true Church") did not leave ANY evidence of their existence despite being around (supposedly) for fifteen centuries???

 

[guanophore]

When we have your version of history and the version from experts…I’ll go with the experts that understand that the notion of a somatic real presence grew out of Antioch and wasn’t there form the start.

It is often difficult to extrapolate out of documents. But the bottom line for Augustine is that he was Catholic, and therefore, embraced the Catholic teachings over His own opinions.

consider now the following statements made by St. Augustine which strongly support the opinion that He held to the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist:

The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ. {Sermo 227; on p.377}

Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.” {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}

[Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)] The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. {City of God, 16, 22; on p.403}

Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. {Ibid, 10, 20; on p.99}

No the Spirit doesn’t misguide…but people do ignore his leading and do manufacture doctrines

So, since we all derive opposing ideas from reading scripture, how is the dispute to be settled? What did Jesus tell us to do?

I am speaking of a miraculous non-cannibalistic manner of eating, if in fact that was what he meant…or … Jesus, who is a loving God, would have still revealed to them the truth, if in fact he was speaking of a miraculous non-cannibalistic manner of eating.

It was a deal breaker, for sure. Those who were not able to accept His teaching by faith followed Him no more.

 you don't like what my answer, but having no answer (as to why Jesus didn't explain your understanding) is still acceptable...

That is because we have received what He gave to the Apostles, and there fore we are content. At the last supper, He said “this is my Body, and this is my Blood”. Surely you would not try to defend the position that He shed “symbolic” blood on the cross?

I would direct you to Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Eusebius and Augustine…but again, one has to go into more depth than the copy and paste analysis that I have seen you produce in the past…and the case for the likes of Ignatius, Irenaeus and Martyr (holding to a real somatic presence) isn’t as strong as you think.

Well, keep reading those fathers.

It is a start. Perhaps you can study your way back to the Apostolic faith?