Eating His Flesh and drinking His blood

[Adullam]

Jesus is the Word incarnate. Man is not to live by bread alone but by every Word from God. So the Body given to us is His words. It is He. His words are to abide in us. This is wisdom. The word is for instruction in righteousness...this is separate from a personal gift of the Holy Spirit.

The blood of Jesus represents His life. We are to drink of His divine life. Our life is to be exchanged for His just as He has given His life for us. This is understanding.

So a disciple must eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood. He must walk in new life from heaven and keep every command of the Lord. This is accomplished by love.

The bread is towards righteousness.
The blood is towards holiness.

We see this duality through the whole bible. For instance we have 2 tablets of the commandments. These contain the 2 different axis...the vertical and the horizontal. We are to love God with our whole being. But we are also to love our neighbour as ourselves. There are 2 main commandments. Jesus Christ came to show us a new and living way, and empower us to walk in HIS life. He also demonstrated the love we are to have for one another. We are to partake of this meal together in remembrance of Him. It is an ongoing meal.

 

[Cornelius]

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. (not us, but them )

Now lets look at a time when He spoke to the multitudes:

Joh 6:24 when the multitude therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they themselves got into the boats, and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.
Joh 6:25 And when they found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, and were filled.
Joh 6:27 Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him the Father, even God, hath sealed.

All of a sudden we see Jesus switching back to parable-mode with the multitudes.

Its interesting that we also see the reality of 666 here in this chapter

Joh 6:66 Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. (so much for OSAS )

Peter got the parable !

Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. Joh 6:58 he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. (eternal life ) Peter indeed got it

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote Cornelius: "We also notice that Jesus spoke in parables only when He spoke to the multitude "

Hi C.

Not true ! He spoke in parables also to his disciples as well - Luke 6:39

 

[Cornelius]

Quote Cornelius: "We also notice that Jesus spoke in parables only when He spoke to the multitude "

Hi C.

Not true ! He spoke in parables also to his disciples as well - Luke 6:39

You are right. Better put would be he always spoke in parables to the multitudes and sometimes also to His disciples Joh 16:28 I came out from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go unto the Father.
Joh 16:29 His disciples say, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no dark saying. (parable)
Joh 16:30 Now know we that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

 

[francisdesales]

Like I said, I am only saying what was written. I am sure if it was meant in another way, it would have said "sometimes" and not "nothing". We also notice that Jesus spoke in parables only when He spoke to the multitude . He spoke plainly to His disciples.But the simple key is to look out when He spoke to the multitudes

Kind of like what He still does today.

C

I thought you didn't want to talk about this. Why are you prolonging this conversation? John 6:51 says the bread He will give is His Flesh, not His Word. The Flesh is given for the life of the WORLD - the same flesh that will be executed on the cross. God's Words - Scriptures - are not given for the "life" of the world.

THEY (words) don't forgive the sins of the world.
Otherwise, the death of Christ was incredibly unnecessary...

Clearly, the "flesh" was His literal Body, the same that would die on the cross, the same that He gave to the Apostles to eat the night before He died. That's what is written, not your comments of interpretation.

If you want to respond, I'll presume you want to keep talking about this...

If you say "I'm done", then it's over and there will be no follow up remarks...

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

I thought you didn't want to talk about this. Why are you prolonging this conversation?

I said I am not going to discuss the Eucharist . I have not been talking about it, I have been talking about parables and multitudes and disciples

 

[Cornelius]

.....so when I am talking about the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, be clear about it, that I am not referring to the Eucharist.

 

[francisdesales]

I thought you didn't want to talk about this. Why are you prolonging this conversation?

I said I am not going to discuss the Eucharist . I have not been talking about it, I have been talking about parables and multitudes and disciples

Ah, now you are talking in parables, too...

Eucharist = body and blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[chestertonrules]

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus in parables unto the multitudes; and without a parable (metaphor) spake he nothing unto them:

I am definitely not going to speak about the Eucharist doctrine to you

Paul is quite clear about the literal nature of the words of Jesus:

1 Cor 10
15I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?


1 Cor 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

And St. Ignatius, a follower of the apostle John, wrote this in 110 AD:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

and Justin Martyr this:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

 

[mondar]

Paul is quite clear about the literal nature of the words of Jesus:

1 Cor 10
15I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?


1 Cor 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

chestertonrules and francisdesales,
How in your opinion does 1 Cor 10:16 or anything in Chapter 11 justify a belief in transubstantiation?

The context of 1 Corinthians 10 is an issue concerning the eating of meats sacrificed to idols. I would agree that 10:16 refers to the fact that partaking in communion is a fellowship in the blood of Christ (???????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ???????). I fail to see how this phrase refers to the resacrifice of Christ. Did not Christ make one sacrifice for the sins of many? (Heb 9:28b "having been once offered to bear the sins of many")

 

[chestertonrules]

Paul is quite clear about the literal nature of the words of Jesus:

1 Cor 10
15I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?


1 Cor 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

chestertonrules and francisdesales,
How in your opinion does 1 Cor 10:16 or anything in Chapter 11 justify a belief in transubstantiation?

The context of 1 Corinthians 10 is an issue concerning the eating of meats sacrificed to idols. I would agree that 10:16 refers to the fact that partaking in communion is a fellowship in the blood of Christ (???????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ???????). I fail to see how this phrase refers to the resacrifice of Christ. Did not Christ make one sacrifice for the sins of many? (Heb 9:28b "having been once offered to bear the sins of many")

What do you think the cup of thanksgiving is?

The Eucharist is not a resacrifice. It is a gift from Jesus to his followers, but it is also a commandment from Jesus.

Paul warns us about partaking in the Eucharist without recognizing the body and blood of Jesus.

 

[francisdesales]

chestertonrules and francisdesales,
How in your opinion does 1 Cor 10:16 or anything in Chapter 11 justify a belief in transubstantiation?

The context of 1 Corinthians 10 is an issue concerning the eating of meats sacrificed to idols. I would agree that 10:16 refers to the fact that partaking in communion is a fellowship in the blood of Christ (???????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ???????). I fail to see how this phrase refers to the resacrifice of Christ. Did not Christ make one sacrifice for the sins of many? (Heb 9:28b "having been once offered to bear the sins of many")

Strawman alert...We don't believe that Jesus is resacrificed, either. The Eucharist is a participation in the ONE sacrifice, in an unbloody manner.

Transubstantiation is a philosophical means of attempting to describe what happens to the host upon the consecration. Clearly, the words at the Last Supper, "this is my body", while continuing to hold the accidents of bread, support the idea that the appearance remains the same, but is called something else because of its substance.

Regards

 

[Vic C.]

<sigh>

Eucharist = eucharisto = to rejoice or give thanks.

The RCC and other orthodox faiths have a tough time considering the real spiritual nature of what Jesus meant because of the steadfast tradition that would be nullified. There is a whole forest out there. Don't let the Eucharist trees get in the way.

Good thread, C! :yes

 

[chestertonrules]

<sigh>

Eucharist = eucharisto = to rejoice or give thanks.

The RCC and other orthodox faiths have a tough time considering the real spiritual nature of what Jesus meant because of the steadfast tradition that would be nullified. There is a whole forest out there. Don't let the Eucharist trees get in the way.

Good thread, C! :yes

The Eucharist is a sacrament of Thanksgiving. That doesn't change the nature of the commandment or its meaning.

Even Martin Luther understood the truth of the Eucharist:

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.â€

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

 

[mondar]

The Eucharist is not a resacrifice. It is a gift from Jesus to his followers, but it is also a commandment from Jesus.

Thank you for the statement that it is not a resacrifice. I think more could be explored on what everyone means by that term. You do not think the elements are a resacrifice and that is appreciated by me. We could also explore the concept of a sacrament and is the Eucharist a grace giving sacrament. Does it lead to continued justification?

I do not doubt that it is a gift of grace in at least some sense of the words "gift." I can take the Eucharist to be a time of "remembrance" and still consider it a gift? Also, I think very few would disagree that it is a commandment.

Paul warns us about partaking in the Eucharist without recognizing the body and blood of Jesus.

I assume that you are referring to 1 Cor 11?

I think your language needs to be more explicit. You use the word "recognizing the body and blood." If I use the words "remembering the body and blood" am I saying the same thing? If you look in many translations, they add the interpretive word manner to "unworthy manner" (see 11:27). From the context, I think that interpretive word is correct. The Corinthians were expressing divisiveness in their celebration of the Eucharist. There were sectarians, herecies, and divisiveness. This was spoken of earlier in 1 Cor... "I am of Paul, I am of Cephas," etc. So then, can we say that the warning is about their manner of Eucharist and the warning does not relate to either a sacramental or non-sacramental view of the Eucharist?

 

[mondar]

chestertonrules and francisdesales,
How in your opinion does 1 Cor 10:16 or anything in Chapter 11 justify a belief in transubstantiation?

The context of 1 Corinthians 10 is an issue concerning the eating of meats sacrificed to idols. I would agree that 10:16 refers to the fact that partaking in communion is a fellowship in the blood of Christ (???????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ???????). I fail to see how this phrase refers to the resacrifice of Christ. Did not Christ make one sacrifice for the sins of many? (Heb 9:28b "having been once offered to bear the sins of many")

Strawman alert...We don't believe that Jesus is resacrificed, either....

Francis, take your meds.

 

[chestertonrules]

[

I think your language needs to be more explicit. You use the word "recognizing the body and blood."

Those are the words of scripture. Some translations have discern, rather than recognize, but it means the same thing.

If I use the words "remembering the body and blood" am I saying the same thing?

No.

If you look in many translations, they add the interpretive word manner to "unworthy manner" (see 11:27). From the context, I think that interpretive word is correct. The Corinthians were expressing divisiveness in their celebration of the Eucharist. There were sectarians, herecies, and divisiveness. This was spoken of earlier in 1 Cor... "I am of Paul, I am of Cephas," etc. So then, can we say that the warning is about their manner of Eucharist and the warning does not relate to either a sacramental or non-sacramental view of the Eucharist?

Paul is explicitly clear that the eucharist is a participation in the body and blood of Christ. Paul is explicitly clear that we must recognize(discern) the body of Jesus in the eucharist.


If you can find a single Christian from the first 1000 years of Christianity who denied the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, please present it.

 

[Mysteryman]

I stand on scripture !

I Corinth. 11:20 - "When you come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper" ! :yes

 

[chestertonrules]

I stand on scripture !

I Corinth. 11:20 - "When you come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper" ! :yes

What is the Lord's Supper?

 

[Cornelius]

<sigh>

Eucharist = eucharisto = to rejoice or give thanks.

The RCC and other orthodox faiths have a tough time considering the real spiritual nature of what Jesus meant because of the steadfast tradition that would be nullified. There is a whole forest out there. Don't let the Eucharist trees get in the way.

Good thread, C! :yes

Thank you, but I really did not want a Eucharist thread LOL. I wanted to talk about the real meaning of eating the flesh and drinking the blood. But people seem to prefer a debate. Now the tread is stuck in talking about idolatry